The GOP Plan » Forum Post by Mumblefratz

"Simply excluding all smoking-related deaths from the World Health Organization’s comparison of life expectancies at age 50 in 20 developed nations would raise U.S. women’s life expectancy from 17th to 7th place and lift American men from 14th to 9th place."

Americans are also more likely to die in Military Combat.

So lets compair apples to apples here.

Lets look at SURVIVAL rates. These rates are what show how good a health care system is.

"A European study found that, compared to 18 European countries, the U.S. had strikingly higher five-year survival rates in all 12 cancers studied, except for one: stomach cancer. Even there, the survival rates were close — and the difference was attributed to the location of the cancer in the stomach.

For all types of cancers, European men have only a 47.3 percent five-year survival rate, compared to 66.3 percent survival rate for American men. The greatest disparity was in prostate cancer, which American men are 28 percent more likely to survive than European men.

European women are only 55.8 percent likely to live five years after contracting any kind of cancer, compared to 62.9 percent for American women.

In five cancers — breast, prostate, thyroid, testicular and skin melanoma — American survival rates are higher than 90 percent. Europeans hit a 90 percent survival rate for only one of those — testicular cancer."

Doesn't look that bad now... but wait! there's more....

"Most disturbingly, many cancers in Europe are discovered only upon the victim’s death — twice as many as in the U.S. Consequently, the European study simply excluded cancers that were first noted on the death certificate, so as not to give the U.S. too great an advantage."

The low life expectancy of the U.S. is a direct result of the freedoms we have to smoke, drink and eat what we want. Sure it may cause one to have to pay for it in health bills later on, but the individual foots that bill, in higher premiums, more expensive procedures and difficult recovery programs.

But it is still their right to live as they see fit. Even if they are not that "fit." [e digicons][/e]

Benjamin Franklin -

They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security

SivCorp

reply 151

The low life expectancy of the U.S. is a direct result of the freedoms we have to smoke, drink and eat what we want. Sure it may cause one to have to pay for it in health bills later on, but the individual foots that bill, in higher premiums, more expensive procedures and difficult recovery programs.

But it is still their right to live as they see fit. Even if they are not that "fit."

Benjamin Franklin -

They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security

I'm actually surprised that smoking hasn't been outlawed here in the United States. Unlike excess eating for example, smoking does affect other people, and worse than the smoker himself. Though definately, the health care problem in the US is because people decide to make themselves unhealthy.

We spend an average of $147 billion for obesity health costs. If people would stop eating so unhealthy, the health care problem in the United States would be virtually null. ^_^

SivCorp - please stop abusing font sizes. People generally read what you post without inch tall letters.

However, in any case I’m starting to think I may have to oppose any of the currently proposed healthcare reform bills as simply being too weak. Let's let the system fall apart some more.

Odd you say that, I've seen a recent poll that said 48% of Americans think passing no reform at all would be better than passing the current House bill. It didn't differentiate betwen those who think this reform is too much and those who think it is not enough.

(Ugly white text)

Citation needed. And no, Glenn Beck doesan't count.

Americans are also more likely to die in Military Combat.

Great. I knew we were part Klingon all along........

Benjamin Franklin -

They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security

And where were you when the NSA was strip-data-mining everybody's emails?

SivCorp - please stop abusing font sizes. People generally read what you post without inch tall letters.

It seems he was referring to the cancer rate survival study that has already been debunked. It's a flawed study that cherry picks easily survived cancers to show cancers that we survive. But whatever.

However, in any case I’m starting to think I may have to oppose any of the currently proposed healthcare reform bills as simply being too weak. Let's let the system fall apart some more.

Odd you say that, I've seen a recent poll that said 48% of Americans think passing no reform at all would be better than passing the current House bill. It didn't differentiate between those who think this reform is too much and those who think it is not enough.

There have been many different polls over quite some time with a wide range of variation dependent on the wording of the actual question. I remember one about a month ago that was 65% for a public option 26% against and 9% don't know.

But definitely you're going to start getting disapproval from both extremes and that disapproval is definitely significantly different from the left versus that from the right. In my case I feel that any health insurance reform (note that it really is only health insurance reform that's being discussed *not* health care reform but you have to start someplace) without a *significant* public option that is specifically tied to Medicare reimbursement rates will only be a gift to the health insurance industry. The way I hear it even the most extreme house version of the public option is expected to cover only about 2% of the country by 2019. To me this is not enough and if this is the case I will actively campaign against it (for what little that is worth).

It is unfortunate because I do believe it's a significant benefit to outlaw pre-existing conditions and rescission but if that's the only two things we get there's still no stopping health insurance premiums from spiraling totally out of control. But like I said *I* can afford significant health insurance premium increases for quite some time. In some sense it’s fitting that there will be many that fight against reform from the right that won’t be able to say the same thing. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face. If you weren’t taking down other well meaning folk with you I’d say it serves you right. Perhaps you can get rich selling a kidney to Yakuza, opps I guess that’s a liver which would mean you’d be dead. Oh well, too bad for you.

And where were you when the NSA was strip-data-mining everybody's emails?

What do you mean *was*? There's no past tense about it.

It seems he was referring to the cancer rate survival study that has already been debunked. It's a flawed study that cherry picks easily survived cancers to show cancers that we survive. But whatever.

Link to the presumed debunking, because this begs a question: if they are easily survived cancers why the hell aren't Europeans surviving them? Although the last part of his post also begs a question, were the cancers found post mortem the cause of death or just simply there?

There have been many different polls over quite some time with a wide range of variation dependent on the wording of the actual question. I remember one about a month ago that was 65% for a public option 26% against and 9% don't know.

I know the Rassmussen surveys are supposedly biased (despite being the single most accurate poll predictor in the last several elections) but they did an interesting bit messing with the wording of the question. Turns out there are specific buzz words you can insert in the poll to skew it one way or another. "Choice" and "option" both skew left, while "government run" skews right even if "choice" and "option" are included with it. Asking people directly whether they would prefer the public option or a guarrantee they could keep their current insurance results in a landslide vote for the status quo.

But definitely you're going to start getting disapproval from both extremes and that disapproval is definitely significantly different from the left versus that from the right. In my case I feel that any health insurance reform (note that it really is only health insurance reform that's being discussed *not* health care reform but you have to start someplace) without a *significant* public option that is specifically tied to Medicare reimbursement rates will only be a gift to the health insurance industry. The way I hear it even the most extreme house version of the public option is expected to cover only about 2% of the country by 2019. To me this is not enough and if this is the case I will actively campaign against it (for what little that is worth).

I haven't been able to find unbiased reporting on it, but there are apparently quite a few doctors that will be opting out of the system because Medicare or Medicare-based pricing isn't enough to break even on. I do know that many don't accept Medicaid for this reason already (and at least Illinois is not as willing to pay as promptly as most would like). Introducing a public option which will have artificially low premiums and not pay market price for services may force doctors to stop accepting private insurace as well, since they will have to compete with the public option.

Keep in mind, Medicare is not entirely paid for with premiums, or even payroll taxes on those of us unlikely to ever see anything from it. 43% of Medicare comes straight out of general revenue because raising the tax or premiums are political suicide. The general revenue funding of Medicare is expected to be 62% by 2030.

Link to the presumed debunking

http://pnhp.org/blog/2009/08/06/facts-about-american-health-care-revisited/

Another interesting *fact* is that most cancers in the US occur among people 65 and older and therefore even *if* the US has a higher cancer survival rate than the rest of the world it certainly doesn't damn the Medicare (i.e. a socialist) system.

Keep in mind, Medicare is not entirely paid for with premiums, or even payroll taxes on those of us unlikely to ever see anything from it. 43% of Medicare comes straight out of general revenue because raising the tax or premiums are political suicide. The general revenue funding of Medicare is expected to be 62% by 2030.

Also keep in mind that Medicare subsidizes hospitals for a large portion of their shortfall due to patients without insurance that cannot pay and also includes what amounts to a subsidy to the health insurance industry in the form of Medicare Part D. The need for both of these subsidys goes away once everyone is covered one way or another. The CBO has in fact confirmed these potential savings in it's cost estimates.

I haven't been able to find unbiased reporting on it, but there are apparently quite a few doctors that will be opting out of the system because Medicare or Medicare-based pricing isn't enough to break even on. I do know that many don't accept Medicaid for this reason already (and at least Illinois is not as willing to pay as promptly as most would like). Introducing a public option which will have artificially low premiums and not pay market price for services may force doctors to stop accepting private insurace as well, since they will have to compete with the public option.

I've heard about this as well and I also haven't chased down a link but this is reconized as a problem with Medicare itself having nothing really to do with tying a public option pay rates to that of Medicare. From what I've heard this is not currently the case but is expected to be the case when a pending Medicare rate reduction goes into effect. Again from what I've heard there is certainly democratic support for eliminating or at least delaying this reduction. As far as republican support they're probably against it since the democrats are for it. In any case it benefits no one if payout rates get so low as too not cover expenses.

It's a balancing act that obviously needs to be adjusted over time and I have no doubt that if any significant amount of doctors start "opting out" of the system that will be a significant motivation for "adjustment". Plus it's not like the health insurance industry doesn't negotiate the best prices they can, it's just that Medicare is larger than any insurer and therefore has a stronger negotiating position. This is an argument *for* a substantial public option not an argument *against* it.

Finally, I don't recall you mentioning your specific health insurance situation, so do you have insurance or do you not bother with it given that you are young? If you have health insurance how much do you pay for it? Are you prepared to have these costs double in 10 years? How about quadruple in 20 years? Because that's where the status quo is going. Like I've said *I* can afford the status quo for at least as long as I expect to live, can you?

As a state employee, I have comprehensive employer-based coverage from a private company. I have no way to quickly check the employer contribution to that, but the small fraction of my premiums I pay myself are $60 a month, including dental. For comparison, my Medicare contribution is $32 a month, for a system that I will almost certainly never benefit from.

Before that I was on the individual market, getting coverage through BCBS. It wasn't nearly as comprehensive and had higher deductibles and copays, but it was about $120 a month without dental.

If ObamaCare passes, I fully expect my rates to double in the next 2-3 years as I lose the benefit of paying rates based on age. Yours will not, as you are already paying rates based on the care you consume. Hell, yours might go down a bit. The good thing is, I will qualify for subsidies that will pay for the doubling of my rates - assuming the subsidies aren't stripped out when people finally see the real cost this reform is going to carry.

Hell, yours might go down a bit. The good thing is, I will qualify for subsidies that will pay for the doubling of my rates

You mean we *both* may benefit from, how you say in America, ObamaCare?

But seriously, not that the above isn't serious, there are some interesting points obscured in what you say. First off the fact that you don't even *know* the employer contribution of your health insurance. Well I guess you said you couldn't quickly check which is slightly different but the point that I've tried to make 20 different ways over the course of at least three threads is that it's *you* that are paying the entirety of your health insurance one way or another. You either pay for it out of pocket like I do or your employer pays you less in wages to compensate. Usually *much* less.

I think I've mentioned this before somewhere or other but when I last changed jobs I was offered two different scenarios. I could get $79 an hour plus my employer would pay for 50% of the value of a single health insurance policy or he would pay me $89 an hour without any medical benefit at all. Of course the cost of insurance plans varies widely but using the averages, ($13,375 for family coverage and $4,824 for single coverage) essentially they were offering to pay for something that costs on average $2,412 per year but pay me $20,000 less per year. Pretty much of a no brainer if I ever saw one.

The point is that you are probably paying far more dearly for your $60 a month than you realize.

Secondly you're still single (I'm assuming) which is also very significant and if you intend to stay that way then fine you can pay about 1/3rd of what you would have to pay for family coverage. But get married and you'll suddenly notice a *huge* difference, particularly if you have no kids but your employer only offers single and family coverage but not the cheaper subscriber plus one coverage. In this case two can live as expensively as three since you'll be paying 3 times the cost for only twice the coverage. But just think, that will make your 2nd child essentially "free" other than deductibles and copays of course.

You mean we *both* may benefit from, how you say in America, ObamaCare?

Trying to offset the screwing they seem intent to give me does not qualify as a "benefit".

But seriously, not that the above isn't serious, there are some interesting points obscured in what you say. First off the fact that you don't even *know* the employer contribution of your health insurance. Well I guess you said you couldn't quickly check which is slightly different but the point that I've tried to make 20 different ways over the course of at least three threads is that it's *you* that are paying the entirety of your health insurance one way or another. You either pay for it out of pocket like I do or your employer pays you less in wages to compensate. Usually *much* less.

I quite agree. In fact, I already posted something about eliminating employer-based insurance entirely in the other topic. I know damn well I'm paying all of my own bills, it would be nice to know exactly how much I'm paying - and be able to compare full costs between companies independant of my employer.

The point is that you are probably paying far more dearly for your $60 a month than you realize.

the small fraction of my premiums I pay myself are $60 a month

I thought I made my knowledge of that fairly clear. My offhand recollection is a 80/20 split, which would put total cost in the $300/mo range compared to the $400/mo range the average has. Seeing as I'm in a huge coverage group, being below the average seems reasonable.

why has there been no criticism in here from the "fiscal conservatives" of Bush's incredibly irresponsible medicaid reforms re medication costs for pensioners? you wanna complain about the deficit? well this will become one of its major components.

FORREST SAWYER: [voice-over] The reason that the Bush administration could pass Medicare part D was that the Republican Congress in 2002 had let a rule called "pay as you go" lapse. It was a rule established by the first President Bush and a Democratic Congress to enforce fiscal discipline.

GREGG IP: His father endured some very serious political pain to do the right thing to get the deficit down. And one of the steps was that a rule called "pay-go," or pay as you go. And this rule basically meant that if you wanted to introduce a new tax cut or a new spending program, you had to find a way to pay for it with an offsetting tax increase or spending cut. Well, in 2002, that rule expired.

ALICE RIVLIN, Dir., Office of Management & Budget, 1994-96: In the Clinton years, we had the "pay-go" rule, pay as you go, and that meant we couldn't pass a lot of good-sounding ideas, including Medicare prescription drugs. It's not that nobody thought of that in the '90s. A lot of people thought of it. But we couldn't pay for it. To pay for it, we would have had to have done a tax increase or cut out some other spending in major proportions, and nobody wanted to do that, so we didn't do it.

FORREST SAWYER: But the Bush administration did do it. With "pay-go" no longer restraining spending, they had pushed through Medicare part D, a program that's projected over time to cost as much as $8 trillion.

DAVID WESSEL: They did not come up with a way to raise taxes or cut spending somewhere else to pay for it, so they just passed this thing. It goes into law. It's a promise to elderly people that we'll pay- subsidize their drugs, and we borrow every year to pay for it. And in the end, it's more expensive than the war in Iraq because the war in Iraq ends at some point. Certainly, it will end now that Obama's president. But the prescription drug benefit will go on forever.

FORREST SAWYER: It will go on forever because it's a promise made by the federal government to its citizens. Seniors are entitled to this benefit, just the as they are entitled to Social Security and Medicare itself. These entitlements are all enormously popular, but they're also enormously expensive. Medicare part D alone will cost $60 billion this year.

JACKIE CALMES: The expense of that over time, unfunded liabilities for the government, at a time when more people are reaching retirement age and qualifying for Medicare, added more to the long-term obligations of the government than all of Social Security.

FORREST SAWYER: Medicare part D was the largest spending bill the president signed, but there were dozens of others. During his first five years as president, with a Republican-controlled House and Senate, George Bush never vetoed a spending bill. Fiscal conservatives in his own party accused him of being the biggest spender since World War II.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tentrillion/etc/script.html

Trying to offset the screwing they seem intent to give me does not qualify as a "benefit".

It's your *assumption* that your premiums will go up and then be offset by a subsidy. That's *not* my understanding or desire.

Again there's lot's of assumptions here but it's my assertion that a *strong* public option will in fact keep your rates from rising and then because of subsidies your "real" cost of insurance will go down perhaps only a little bit initially but most importantly we would have a chance at stopping the uncontrolled sprial of huge increases over time so that in future years you would be paying far less than you would otherwise be paying.

In my case I'm not all that concerned whether or not my costs go down or even if they go up a reasonable amount just as long as we get off this double digit health insurance inflation spiral.

I know damn well I'm paying all of my own bills, it would be nice to know exactly how much I'm paying - and be able to compare full costs between companies independant of my employer.

Hmmm ... before I paid the entirety of my health insurance myself I always received a yearly statement of what was paid by my employer on my behalf. I *thought* that it was a federal requirement to provide such information but perhaps your being a state employee makes that different.

I thought I made my knowledge of that fairly clear. My offhand recollection is a 80/20 split, which would put total cost in the $300/mo range compared to the $400/mo range the average has. Seeing as I'm in a huge coverage group, being below the average seems reasonable.

$300 total cost per month for single coverage is not unreasonable, as you say you're in a large group but that isn't what I meant.

What I meant was how much less are you paid because of that? That's something you *really* have no clue about. Again being a state employee might very well affect that ratio but if you were in the private sector I wouldn't be surprised if you were in effect paying double or more. In other words if your employer pays $240 per month of health insurance premium on your behalf it probably means that they're paying you $500 less than they would otherwise be willing to pay you. That's what I mean by your $60 costing dearly if because of paying only $60 a month on healthcare you end up getting paid $500 (or more) less per month in wages. In such a case your "real" cost of insurance is $60 per month of premium *plus* $500 per month in lost wages.

why has there been no criticism in here from the "fiscal conservatives" of Bush's incredibly irresponsible medicaid reforms re medication costs for pensioners? you wanna complain about the deficit? well this will become one of its major components

My personal opinion is that he did it as a poison pill so that Medicare would go broke sooner.

haha, im not quite that cynical. im just not sure economics was one of W's strong points

im just not sure economics was one of W's strong points

Or arithmetic.

It's your *assumption* that your premiums will go up and then be offset by a subsidy. That's *not* my understanding or desire.

Again there's lot's of assumptions here but it's my assertion that a *strong* public option will in fact keep your rates from rising and then because of subsidies your "real" cost of insurance will go down perhaps only a little bit initially but most importantly we would have a chance at stopping the uncontrolled sprial of huge increases over time so that in future years you would be paying far less than you would otherwise be paying.

I haven't seen anything in any of the reform bills that would keep my premiums from going up. Instead, enforcing the coverage of preexisting conditions will make everyone's rates go up slightly. The individual mandate will at best be neutral, as the fines written in now are not sufficient to force a healthy young person to comply (meaning they are lower than typical insurance costs). Ending risk-based premiums (meaning age-based) will mean an equalization between the high premiums the old are paying now and the lower premiums the young pay - meaning mine go up and yours come down.

The only difference a storng public option will differ from a weak one is how many employers choose to just pay the fine and make employees take the public option. The entire public option scheme is intended to make it the Medicare of the young - it will become everyone's primary insurance and the private insurance market will be relegated to supplemental coverage like what is available for Medicare now. As it's written now, insurance on the exchange will be required to be clones of the public option. While they could in theory compete by adding more comprehensive options compared to the PO (they aren't legally allowed to offer less coverage than the PO), why would anyone try that when the supplemental business model would work better?

What I meant was how much less are you paid because of that? That's something you *really* have no clue about. Again being a state employee might very well affect that ratio but if you were in the private sector I wouldn't be surprised if you were in effect paying double or more. In other words if your employer pays $240 per month of health insurance premium on your behalf it probably means that they're paying you $500 less than they would otherwise be willing to pay you. That's what I mean by your $60 costing dearly if because of paying only $60 a month on healthcare you end up getting paid $500 (or more) less per month in wages. In such a case your "real" cost of insurance is $60 per month of premium *plus* $500 per month in lost wages.

I am aware of that as well, the difference being there is no way of knowing. Most people never get the option you did(although if health insurance inflation continues the geometric growth rate the cost/benefit balance of that choice will eventually turn out the other way). Yet one more reason to end employer-based insurance. But of course that will never happen, the average American is incapable of budgeting and so wouldn't be able to afford health insurance if it didn't come out of their paycheck before they ever saw it.

Hmmm ... before I paid the entirety of my health insurance myself I always received a yearly statement of what was paid by my employer on my behalf. I *thought* that it was a federal requirement to provide such information but perhaps your being a state employee makes that different.

I can't guarantee that I don't, I just don't know for sure and don't feel like digging through the mess I call a filing system to find out. This is the first time I ever had employer-based insurance; prior to four years ago I was always covered by my parents, the univeristy student plan, an individual plan, or nothing.

That's not really my point though; the point is I never get the option of choosing what coverage I think I need, whether I'm willing to pay extra to get mental health coverage, or rehab benefits, or fertility treatment benefits, etc. Instead I get four options that are all basically the same coverage but with marginally different copay/deductible options and slightly varied provider networks. What I pay for these coverage clones is identical no matter which I pick, so there's no real cost/benefit analysis beyond which copay/deductible scheme I think will result in the lowest out of pocket cost. At least I get to choose whether I want dental or not.

Problem is, this is about to be forced on everyone. The new federal standards will dictate what needs to be covered to compete in the market, and the minimum is going to be set high. The bare bones option is going to be effectively what I have now.

haha, im not quite that cynical. im just not sure economics was one of W's strong points

I am that cynical, although in this case I think you might have the wrong cynical reason. Seniors are the single biggest voter bloc, so pandering to them helped Bush get reelected. Damn the cost, by the time it really hits he'd be out of office and it's the next guy's problem. Almost exactly what will happen with health reform, none of it kicks in until Obama is safely out of office.

Opps.

Yet another opps.

Hey, he uses the same copy of the constitution I do! Of course, mine has parts crossed out with better suggestions written in the margins, but still.....

In his defense, I actually do have that pamphlet, and it does have a declaration of independance in it, so this is only a PARTIALLY absurd mistake.....

Both of these are simple little gaffes of no real importance and unworthy of comment if it wasn't for the holier than thou attitude that accompanies them. It's the attitude, not the mistake itself, that makes it so apropos.

Wait, what? Truth to power? I'm pretty sure you make yourself look like a dumbass when you work for the White House and you start spouting off about truth to power to a media outlet. Truth to power rhetoric only makes sense when you are telling it to someone more powerful than you; maybe she thinks FOX is bigger than the White House?

It seems you were trying to post a video reply.

I used to have difficulty doing so as well. The trick is to cut the embed code down to it's minimal tag and let the forum software provide the rest.

For example the embed code copied from You Tube for the clip I posted in reply #171 looks like the following except I've replaced the angle brackets with curly brackets so that the html is not interpreted.

{object width="480" height="295"}{param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/_YldO2AYF5E&hl=en&fs=1"}{/param}{param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"}{/param}{param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"}{/param}{embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_YldO2AYF5E&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="480" height="295" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"}{/embed}{/object}

So to embed this, first press the "Edit HTML Source", paste in the above and delete all but the following embed key.

{embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_YldO2AYF5E&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="480" height="295" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"}

Then hit "Update" to exit the HTML source editor followed by "Post Reply" in the main reply box.

One more caveat emptor. For some reason I can only get this to work using FireFox and not IE7. YMMV

Truth to power?

I have no idea what you're talking about. Is "truth to power" some kind of code phrase with which I'm not familar? I googled the phrase and got some hits related to Quakers but it seemed to me to be an innocuous phrase used in passing with no particular insidious meaning. I would never have noticed it if you hadn't pointed it out and by no means was it a significant or noticeable part of the clip.

I suppose I could be wrong but all this said to me was the WH is unwilling to let lies and distortions stand unchallenged. I found nothing untoward in that.

It seems you're reading a *lot* into a very short, very unimportant pair of words. But if you see meaning in such things then I'm sure you'll like the following clip.

It seems you were trying to post a video reply.

You had explained it before, I just had to go back and find where. Truth is that I suck at all foreign languages, including programming. I can use simple stuff like [ quote ] tags and whatnot, but my brain simply doesn't work in a way that allows me to think in terms of syntax of other types of communication. It's a real handicap for someone who likes to screw around on foruns like this. For some reason legalese is an exception, I rarely have trouble following it.

As for speaking truth to power, it is simply a form of moral courage. Standing up to the prevalent opinion and saying "you are wrong". The point is, it takes no courage whatsoever to speak the same truth to someone vastly inferior in power compared to the speaker. Compare these: going to the president of the company you work for and telling him his newest pet project is a stupid waste of time and money; and the president of your company telling you the idea you suggested is not worth investing time and money into. In which of those two situations is the person expressing their view taking a bigger risk in speaking their mind?