’)The health care special the president did not win its time slot, but it did do better than both Conan or Dave in the ratings. Its as if people don’t think the existing health care system isn’t a bed of roses. Imagine if we had Democratic majorities in the House and Senate with a Democratic president ready willing and able to sign such reforms into law.
Imagine.
Imagine if we had Democratic majorities in the House and Senate with a Democratic president ready willing and able to sign such reforms into law.
Imagine if the Bobbi Fleckman Principle didn’t, per usual, rule the day.
So … It got better ratings than a 3:30 am rerun of the Sham-wow commercial. Do you really want to move the goalposts THAT far?
I wonder how many of those viewers had been previously fed a steady diet of ‘SOSHULISM!’ from Hannity’s shit machine.
With a pricetag of up to 3 trillion, who isn’t excited?! Check it out: FOX News sure isn’t, and I’m with them on this one. (video: http://www.newsy.com/videos/numbers_and_figures_and_polls_oh_my)
Its moving goalposts to compare a primetime wonkathon to the ratings of the two major nighttime enterainment shows? Interesting. Were you this interested in goal post shifting when someone said “when the Iraqis stand up, we will stand up”. Actually, no, you weren’t.
Democratic President Obama gives ABC it’s “best 10pm audience in six weeks” AND provides a lead in so that ABC’s Nightline beats both Conan AND Dave…
… clearly good news for Republican McCain!
Hey, you should be happy nobody watched.
Wait wait wait, I was under the impression that the ABC special was a serious journalistic enterprise to investigate an issue of national relevance. Why is this a big win for Obama that so many people watched? I can understand the euphoria if it was an Obama infomercial, but this was a serious examination of a serious issue.
Colin: “Wait wait wait, I was under the impression that the ABC special was a serious journalistic enterprise to investigate an issue of national relevance. Why is this a big win for Obama that so many people watched? I can understand the euphoria if it was an Obama infomercial, but this was a serious examination of a serious issue.”
Are you this fucking stupid? Or is it an act?
Serious question.
I want to know if you are pretending to be this dumb, or if you think your question is legitimate.
Perhaps the fact that it looks less and less likely to happen, with all that voting prowess, should indicate that the idea isn’t nearly as possible as you’d like to think.
Oops, figures, as popular as you’d like to think.
Serious question: why is this a good thing? Why is this something worth celebrating?
Oh no! Americans will watch an important TV news investigation into health care proposals supported by the President!
Right wingers like corporatist “Colin” will have to redouble their efforts of distraction!
“LOOK, BUNNY!->”
I don’t remember what story this was in, but this snippet gives me hope that the general public hasn’t completely lost it:
Oh no! Americans will watch an important TV news investigation into health care proposals supported by the President!
But if it’s an investigation that asks deep probing questions why should that be welcomed?
Seems to me that it’s only a win if you think that ABC tee’d up Obama to make a salespitch.
but when respondents were told that meant some insurers would go out of business, support dropped sharply, to 37 percent.
I’d be jumping for joy.
Colin: “Seems to me that it’s only a win if you think that ABC tee’d up Obama to make a salespitch.”
Seems to me that you are a fucking ‘tard.
Seriously, explain why high ratings is not a good thing.
“but when respondents were told that meant some insurers would go out of business, support dropped sharply, to 37 percent.”
Duros62: “I’d be jumping for joy.”
Same here.
Buzz “don’t remember what story this was” Killington:
http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2009/06/our-domestic-abuse-relationship-with.html
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132×8492781
http://jwalkerreport.blogspot.com/2009/06/washington-post-falsely-reports-on-its.html
Remember now?
Happy to help.
For those of us not inane or insane or ignorant or evil…
problem soluble & solved:
Gavin Newsom – Mayor of San Francisco
Posted: June 25, 2009 06:33 PM
A Model for Universal Health Care Coverage
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gavin-newsom/a-model-for-universal-hea_b_221123.html
“… Two years, after we launched the United States’ first universal health care program, Healthy San Francisco, almost 70% of previously uninsured San Franciscans are now enrolled…
As the chair of U.S. Conference of Mayors Health Care Reform Task Force, I am working with both Republican and Democratic mayors…”
Petition here:
http://www.gavinnewsom.com/actions/petition
Right winger “Colin” asks: “But if it’s an investigation that asks deep probing questions why should that be welcomed?”
Right wingers don’t welcome investigations that ask deep probing questions.
That is as true a statement as you’ll ever get from right wing con-artist “Colin”.
Blue dogs took an oath to protect and defend insurance company profits
“jr”: “Blue dogs took an oath to protect and defend insurance company profits”
Now that’s an investigation with deep probing questions that I would welcome.
Guess we know which side of the 63/37 split you fell.
“Seriously, explain why high ratings is not a good thing.”
Well, it *DIDN’T* get good ratings, so your posturing is irrelevant.
Which part of: Obama gives ABC it’s “best 10pm audience in six weeks” AND provides a lead in so that ABC’s Nightline beats both Conan AND Dave, didn’t you understand, “Save Farris”?
I think SaveFarris didn’t understand the “last in the time slot but” you cut off immediately before “ABC’s best 10pm audience in six weeks”.
How often does ABC’s Nightline beat Conan and Dave?
And how is getting their best ratings in a month and a half somehow a bad thing?
Keep in mind that the right wing blogosphere has been trumpeting the ratings since the program aired (and even before the ratings were compiled).
But when you look at the ratings it’s clear that ABC got it’s best audience share in 45 days and even managed to keep that audience and beat out CBS and NBC later that night.
Republicans can’t fathom that we have a president who people actually want to hear from.
“… seems popular”
So do unicorns that fart rainbows…can I have one of those too?
So do unicorns that fart rainbows…can I have one of those too?
I can do you better than that, pedro…
[poof!]
there – you don’t just have one, you are one!
Nightline hasn’t beaten Conan and Dave since Koppel left.
Me: “Seriously, explain why high ratings is not a good thing.”
SaveFarris: “Well, it *DIDN’T* get good ratings, so your posturing is irrelevant.”
And you are basing this statement on … what?
What is your point of comparison?
Have you done the research on this matter?
Can you give some data points to back up your claim?
Or are you just talking out of your ass?
You don’t need to answer that question, because we all know the truth.
“… seems popular”
usualsuspect: “So do unicorns that fart rainbows…can I have one of those too?”
Does every other industrialized nation have those too?
At this point, you really need to shut up and let those in contact with reality do the talking.
Popular, schmopular!
Is this American Idol, or the government backed Health Plan?
That’s like saying people watched a certain television program, because they wanted to buy Cheez-Its or Chryslers…
If anything, the ratings indicate that lots of people have lots of questions about the plan, and considering that Pres Obama has been attempting to sell the plan for at least 18 months, that is not a good sign …
According to a scathingly brilliant commentary by Neal Cavuoto the other day, the government is saying that “Whatever you love about your current health coverage, you can keep it” and “It will pay for itself, down the road.” Naturally, he asks, “If that’s the case, why change it?”
Why, indeed?
If you want to expand the coverage, expand the coverage.
1) Stop making the infirm, the pregnant, the disabled and the elderly schlep all the way to the Social Services office. Go out and sign people up at home, if necessary.
2)Streamline the Certification process, and re-Certification process.
3) Sign up all the children under 16 and adults over 60 in a household, if one person in the household is eligible.
4) Don’t make people on Social Security wait two years for Medicare.
5) Allow people to be eligible for Medicaid no matter what car they own, and even if they own their own homes.
6)Give every child between the ages of 11 and 16 a FREE physical and Dental Exam, and send the report either to their Doctor (Dentist), a Clinic or their parent or guardian.
7) Just like the old days, pay for a Doctor and a LPN to be assigned to the local Board of Health, so a student can see a Health Care Professional, if they become sick or injured while in school.
9) Recompute the spend down so it is no more than 10% of a person’s income. Should a person with AIDS and a $24,000 a year income, be forced to pay $600 a month for his “cocktail” besides his (minimum) $12 co-pay?
All of these things, cumulatively, will cost nowhere near $10 billion a year.
Stop screwing around trying to take over the Health Care industry, and start taking care of sick people that don’t have health plans.
Republicans are all the sudden full of such brilliant (not really) plans! Funny thing is that they did nothing to enact them when they had complete control of congress and the white house for 6 years. Obvious the current states of health care is very important to them.
Frank DiSalle: “According to a scathingly brilliant commentary by Neal Cavuoto…”
And this is where the smart people stop reading your post.
Frank diSalle has weird logic. If Medicare was universal, how would it not be an universal public covering? Not that it would be a bad thing, but rightwingers saying “we’re against public but lets get every aspect of public ok?” sounds very desperate!
CSS : Never let any facts stand in the way of your opinion…
No one said Medicare would be universal … Certainly not I …
What I said was “Don’t make Social Security recipients wait two years for Medicare”
I was suggesting that Medicaid and Medicare be expanded, not made universal.
Oh, and Michael: Unless I missed the message, I wasn’t asked by any Republican Congressmen or Senators what I thought. Any more than any Democrats have called you lately to ask you what you think.
Damn skippy.
Frank DiSalle: “CSS : Never let any facts stand in the way of your opinion…”
Look, Neal Cavuoto could not be a worse reference. If you believe what you say, find another source. He could only be right by accident.
It’s like quoting the guy on the street corner shouting that the FBI is in cahoots with your cat stealing your thoughts and making you buy tuna.
Find another source.
That’s like saying people watched a certain television program, because they wanted to buy Cheez-Its or Chryslers…
Tell Hannity we said “hey.”
Naturally, he asks, “If that’s the case, why change it?”
Exactly. If it’s broke, why fix it?
“We chose to go to the moon and do the other things not because they are easy but because they are hard.”
That’s where we need to be right now.
Stop screwing around trying to take over the Health Care industry, and start taking care of sick people that don’t have health plans.
That’s what we’re saying. glad you’re on board, Frank.
No one said Medicare would be universal … Certainly not I …
Okay, why not?
Frank: Have you seen the Obama website? It’s web 2.0′d out, there’s all kinds of places where I can put my information.
I haven’t received many calls from my representative but that’s probably because I love overseas. On the other hand I actually go to debates and speak to my representatives to let them know what I think about things when I get a chance.
The party of conservatives and the right, the Republican party, had 6 years of complete control of Washington. They not only didn’t enact any health care reform (one way or another) they didn’t even mention it. It’s not a priority to them, the only priority is maintaining the status quo and fighting against anything Obama says.
That’s why anything any Republican says about reform seems ridiculous because they didn’t do anything at all when they were in charge. Their response plan that they’ve thrown forth has NO MANDATES for change to the current system, just a bunch of tax cuts. All of the things on your little list of things we could do if we wanted to reform the system in a Republican way are not in the Republican plan. That’s why we don’t take conservatives seriously on health care.
Man, that post is full of typos. That’s what I get for writing first thing in the morning when I haven’t fully woken up yet.
I am not going to discuss whether or not Neal Cavuoto is believable.
Has the government (i.e., Pres Obama) represented the belief that “Anything you love about your own Health Plan, you can keep”?
Has the government (i.e., Pres Obama) represented the belief that “It will pay for itself in the end”?
If he has, then I am saying, “If that is the case, why change it?” That would be the only logical response to those two statements taken together.
Duros, CSS and Michael: These are suggestions I am making. I am not interested in what the Republicans may or may have not done while they were in power. (Of course, to say that “They never mentioned health care reform in 6 years,” I will charitably call ‘hyperbole’.) I also don’t care if one commenter takes conservatives seriously on health care, and I don’t believe any commenter on this thread represents anyone but himself, any more than I believe that I represent disabled veterans or social security recipients.
Perhaps if the Democrats reached out to the people currently being inadequately served by the current version of Government Health Care, and instituted immediate, real reforms, they might then get some support for other reforms.
As to why Medicare should not be Universal:
1) Because many Doctors loathe the paperwork involved;
2) Recipients of Medicare must currently pay in the neighborhood of $100 a month, or more to get adequate health and prescription coverage.
3) As stated before, most Social Security recipients must get benefits for two years to even qualify for Medicare.
4) And, if it’s broke, and you can’t fix it, leave it alone!
Now, if any of you can point to any field, or type of service, that the Government has become involved in, in the last 80 years, where that service or field was improved by said government involvement, then I might believe that the government can get in the driver’s seat of America’s Health System, and improve it.
If he has, then I am saying, “If that is the case, why change it?”
To cover the people currently left out of the private system, the ones who certainly don’t like what they’re currently getting and probably find little worth keeping.
Assuming private companies can compete and are still viable without the de facto subsidy of the lack of a public option (if one assumes private care would be superior, you have to assume they can compete, as they do in Australia), then everyone who can afford it and prefers it will use private insurance, while those who can’t afford private insurance will use the public plan.
Education is a useful comparison. Private schools offer a superior education probably most of the time. But public education is vastly superior to nothing. For that reason I don’t favor single-payer – those who can afford it ought to be allowed the choice, as with schools.
It would seem to me , Parthenon, that you might favor expanded coverage, as I do.
I’ll freely admit that I’m not one tenth as knowledgable as the other commenters here on this subject, on both sides. It just seems damned crazy to me that we have rights to education and attorneys but not doctors.
that you might favor expanded coverage
Have the Republicans even proposed an alternative plan that includes expanded coverage mandates? From what I read of their plan it was mostly tax cuts and “encouragement”. Expanded coverage isn’t even on the table and it seems like a distraction to discuss it as neither party in power has brought it up. If, on the other hand, you have some say in what the Republicans propose, Frank, maybe you can get them to write it up and then we can discuss the merits. Otherwise we’re just shooting at hypotheticals.
Otherwise we’re just shooting at hypotheticals.
Welcome to Blog posting.
end italics
Well one of the things we’re discussing has a very real chance of being enacted by an incredibly popular President and his party that holds a significant majority in the house and the senate. The other is something some guy named Frank wrote in the comments section of a blog that he disagrees with.
When the Republican leadership starts to discuss binding mandates for expanded coverage then I’ll take it seriously. But right now there’s nothing to argue about because there’s no plan. Would I be against congress passing a law saying that health insurance companies must cover pre-existing conditions and can’t raise premiums after illnesses? Yes, that sounds nice. Would it solve all of the problems that the US has with health care as well as Obama’s plan is capable of? I don’t think so.
Hell, had Obama proposed mandates I have a strong feeling you’d be screaming about that and claiming it’s socialism so I’m not too fussed. That’s what makes it a red herring.
Michael, spare me the predicting of the future and the amateur psychoanalysis — You’re not [Peanuts'] Lucy, and I’m not giving you a quarter.
My suggestion was only meant to indicate that we could begin to take steps to improve the Health Care Industry without a trillion dollar overhaul and massive government interference.
Instead of cherry picking a point to argue about, talk about what I suggested, and tell me why we can’t start there, and see how it goes.
Otherwise, you’re just a guy named Michael, taking the long way around to say, “I agree with the President.”
I gotta say I live in a public health care system and it works pretty well. The problem here is that the government is pulling back from it’s commitments to public health care. Some folks look south at your system and droll because of its “free enterprise” appearance. We have private medical clinics opening up that are left alone where in once upon a time they would have been shut down. That Doctor Day the the fear right are using in their adds and Hannity et al are always referencing, is a medical entrepreneur that is trying to undermine the Canadian system and start an America style health care system. He’s terrified what could happen to his business if the US system goes (a little) public.
Are there horror stories here? You bet. Are there many? No. Is it perfect? No. Do I like it? I love it.
Public health care requires public money and to the extent that our government with holds public $$, the system suffers. That’s why our system is a little frayed around the edges. It wasn’t always the case. My 2 cents.
Of course you like it Bacon.
Let me tell you a little bit about yourself. You are educated, have a decent job, buy you aren’t paying even close to the top of the tax bracket. You are generally healthy, and like being able to go get “free” medical care and drugs when you get the flu.
For you, the system makes sense.
Unfortunately, if you are truly sick, the system gives what we in the US would consider second rate care. In the meantime, your doctors take advantage of the health technology that is developed in the US (admittedly not much of it. Canada has 1/2 of the CT scanners per capita of the US). You also take advantage of the better training here, sending huge numbers of physicians our way for training (I know, I have trained a great number of them). Most of them also try to STAY in the US after they train here ( a skewed sample I admit, I don’t claim most Canadian physicians want to come here).
But let me give you an example of the real problem. And it isn’t an isolated “horror story”, but rather shows you the fundamental failure of the system. You can search this out if you wish, as it was a paper presented at an international meeting.
The paper looked at the natural history of a certain kind of benign brain tumor. More specifically, it looked at what happened to it when you watched it when YOU KNEW IT WAS GROWING!
Turns out, there was a greater than two year waiting list to get these tumors treated, even when there evidence they were enlarging! Now the Canadian doctors did a really nice job describing how much they grew, etc, so it was a really good paper.
Of course those of us from the States immediately asked “why would you not treat a growing brain tumor?” That was when the two year waiting list was explained to us.
Let me tell you a little about yourself. You’re an educated, medical professional who is in a high tax bracket and hates paying taxes and thinks people should get off of there fat asses and get to work because you’re sick and tired of having your hard earned dollars go to druggies on welfare. Did I get it right?
Of course you no nothing about me, but in usual fashion you make false assumptions in order to trivialize what I said and to sound smarter than me. You know nothing about my family and friends and the trial and tribulations of my own life. You know nothing about me, how much I make and what taxes I pay.
“Unfortunately, if you are truly sick, the system gives what we in the US would consider second rate care.”
That’s total BS and you know it. To much Heritage Foundation crap in your discourse. The average person here gets equal care to the average person there, maybe even better The very rich get better care wherever they live and I don’t begrudge them that. But I don’t want a system whose MO operates in the realm where most can’t afford care. People I know have been diagnosed with breast cancer and THE NEXT DAY were operated on and saved.
BTW I never said anything about the quality of your research and science. When you put your mind to it you folks could pretty well accomplish anything you set your mind to. That’s never been disputed.
“Most of them also try to STAY in the US after they train here”
Are they paying to train there? If so, what’s the problem. I know of a few US doctors to came up here to practice because of our single pay health care and the distinct absence of law suits and the astronomical liability insurance that they had to carry. So what. Some stay there some come here. That’s a weak point that means nothing.
“why would you not treat a growing brain tumor?”
I completely agree with that sentiment. The only reason we have SOME waiting lists is because of funding. Less tax breaks and more funding of public health sounds like a solution to me.
At least you didn’t argue any of my points!
Look, if you want to make an argument that we should give less care, thereby saving money, make that argument.
The problem is that the lefties don’t have the courage to make that argument. They don’t have to pay the outrageous taxes that would be required to put the system in place, they will just reap the benefits.
75% of the “uninsured” in the US could be covered. Either they have the money to insure themselves, or were uninsured for a short time or are eligible for already existing plans. Further, because of EMTALA laws, ANYONE can walk into ANY emergency room for acute care.
Your final line says it all, and explains exactly why government medicine is doomed to be substandard: There will never be enough. Until the people that make the income are taxed to the point that they stop producing or leave, the rest of the populace that doesn’t pay those taxes will demand more. You don’t have to pay the taxes, but you are demanding more funds from those who do.
Does that bother you at all?
Look, if you want to make an argument that we should give less care, thereby saving money, make that argument.
And the righties keep pretending that private insurers don’t make this case all the time, right now.
Faferoo, that’s because if a private company says no, there are thousands of other options. If the government says no, you’re pretty much screwed.
if a private company says no, there are thousands of other options
No, there aren’t. Really. You haven’t been paying attention at all. This has been carefully explained.
If you have health insurance and your insurer decides not to authorize a treatment for whatever condition you have, you can pay for the treatment yourself. That’s the only option you get, same as with (as yet imaginary) government-sponsored insurance.
If, for example, your employer offers insurance provided by
Aetna, and Aetna won’t authorize the treatment you need, your employer can’t go buy you insurance from United. You can’t personally go buy insurance from anyone that will cover your pre-existing condition.
So just stop it, already.
Wow, I’ve said some pretty presumptuous things in this thread but usualsuspect takes the cake for assuming an entire life story about someone! That comment is the most asinine thing I’ve ever read.
Farfaroo, I pretend no such thing. Private insurers constantly try to give less care. I have to make phone calls to “medical directors” trying to get mri’s done etc. I have a 100% rate of approval by the way, because the medical director has no idea what I do, and they just reflexively deny things in hopes that the ordering physicians just won’t take the 20 minutes necessary to have a conversation.
So you think this is going to get BETTER with a government system that is supposed to save money? Yea, sweet dreams Buttercup……
Farris and Quaker are both correct.
A company can just change plans. More importantly though, they can negotiate with a plan for coverage. The larger the company, the more negotiating clout they have. But, an individual can’t really do that. If they try to switch insurance, whatever the problem was becomes a “pre-existing condition”, and another, private, plan won’t cover it.
Most of the denials I see come from the government sponsored plans. Usually Medicaid-type. They just nickel and dime the little stuff, won’t approve medications, things like that.
Michael, did you notice that none of my assumptions were refuted? And even if the assumptions were all incorrect, the point still stands: Most of the people calling for universal health care (really GOOD universal health care) are spending OTHER peoples money. Heck, thats easy!
“Yea, I want that silver Benz over there, and bill that rich guy up the street for it!”
Faferoo, that’s because if a private company says no, there are thousands of other options. If the government says no, you’re pretty much screwed.
But what about the magic of the free market? Presumably there will be plenty of private insurance options available for those who want to and are able to supplement their government plans, right?
Or else people can pay for their desired treatments themselves, just like the do now.
You guys just aren’t being honest here.
usual suspect attacks the public option on the basis of presumed health care rationing as if this doesn’t currently happen. Then, when called on it, has to add the qualifier: “Oh well what I meant was that rationing would be worse under the government plan.”
One has to ask, why? On what basis are you assuming that the rationing which currently occurs will be worse under the government plan? You give no facts. No present no studies. You just, once again, fall back on tired right wing talking points.
And this is just priceless:
And even if the assumptions were all incorrect, the point still stands …”
In other words: “Even if I’m totally wrong, you’re all still parasites! So nyah, nyah!”
Awesome.
You guys just aren’t being honest here.
…
“Yea, I want that silver Benz over there, and bill that rich guy up the street for it!”
Who’s not being honest? My money’s on the guy who equates life and death health care treatment to owning a luxury car.
Asinine. You don’t deserve a refutation when you make ridiculous, moronic assumptions about someone else’s life like this.
If I am wrong about my assumptions regarding this individual Farf. I didn’t make up people that don’t pay a lot of tax but want lots from others who do.
But as far as rationing goes…yea, it is the devil you know, plus the history of government. The market (a real free market that is) isn’t susceptible to union PACs etc. I trust its regulation.
Can you name a single government program (and please, don’t tell me fire departments and roads) that was taken over from the private sector and then ran better, more efficiently or cheaper?
You are back to the usual liberal “perfection” argument. Because the system isn’t perfect now, you visualize one that is, through your rose colored glasses, but want someone else to foot the bill for it, and have no answer when it turns out to be worse (see Obama, “indefinite detention”, “patriot act”, or “obama promises transparency” for examples)
Michael, let me give you a made up email address if you just want to attack me, save everyone else the wasted time.
You can’t argue any of my points…go back to playing in the sandbox, you don’t have any idea what the grownups are talking about.
You’re the one who started attacking. That’s what making condescending assumptions about people is! I’ve just pointed out that it’s a stupid way to frame an argument.
What are your points anyway? Nothing we have discussed ad infinitum in the last two threads. List us three, concise points that you’d like a response to, not some rambling, assumption filled diatribe, and we’ll give you an actual response I’m sure.
Can you name a single government program (and please, don’t tell me fire departments and roads) that was taken over from the private sector and then ran better, more efficiently or cheaper?
God! You’re trying to frame the debate in a way that only you can win it. You’re begging the question.
-Post office
-Disaster relief
-Police
-Practices and standards
-Drug approval
Are all things that governments do well, well at least when Republicans like Bush aren’t in charge of them.
I guess that could be the best conservative argument against health care: Don’t enact government option health care because if us Republicans get back in to power we’ll fuck it up like we fucked up Katrina, the Iraq war planning, etc., etc.
None of which were private enterprises taken over by government.
In fact, the post office went the other way…sort of.
4 Points:
1. Government funded healthcare will be slow, inefficient and expensive compared to what we have today, and is in fact in every country that has it.
2. The argument for government funded healthcare is primarily being raised here by people who don’t pay the highest income tax, therefore will have the least negative effect by it.
3. The government healthcare plan will ration (either by straight out denial, or by long waiting times or other bureaucratic hurdle)healthcare much more than the private system does today.
4. The majority of people without health insurance today could be covered under the CURRENT system. The small percentage that can’t be, could be using a much cheaper and efficient system than revamping the entire national healthcare system.
And the question for you: If you and your lefty ilk really believe that the presidential administration has that much effect on the day-to-day workings of government, are you willing to trust the next Republican administration with your health?
Oh, and you may want to revisit your list.
There are more liberal diatribes about disaster relief, drug approvals and “practices and standards” (whatever you mean by that!), than just about anything else. Are you saying those areas are well run? (remember “Katrina” and “Big Pharma”?) You guys have a hard time keeping your arguments straight!
“1. Government funded healthcare will be slow, inefficient and expensive compared to what we have today”
Have you ever been to an ER in America?
“The argument for government funded healthcare is primarily being raised here by people who don’t pay the highest income tax, therefore will have the least negative effect by it.”
Not true, in my case. Not “the highest,” but well above average.
“3. The government healthcare plan will ration (either by straight out denial, or by long waiting times or other bureaucratic hurdle)healthcare much more than the private system does today.”
We already have “rationing,” in the form of HMO’s that deny care to people due to cost-benefit analysis. In fact, to bring up “rationing” is kind of fucking stupid, given that the whole point of the American system right now is that people with coverage can’t get care since it costs their insurance CEO too much money.
“4. The majority of people without health insurance today could be covered under the CURRENT system.”
How? Seriously, that’s the dumbest point of all.
1. Yes, and if you have an actual EMERGENCY there is essentially no wait time at all
2.Yes, true and you admitted so in your own inane argument
3. Stipulated. Expect a whole lot more under a government plan
4. Over 70% of the currently uninsured either have been without insurance for less than 6 months, could afford to buy their own plan but choose not to, or already qualify for federal plans but have not enrolled.
Thing is that because of the “government is always bad” attitude of the conservatives and libertarians the important services that government provides, like disaster relief and the FDA approval, purposely get degraded to the point of not working on Republicans’ watch. So your argument against government run services to me seems more like an argument against libertarian minded administrations.
1. Government funded healthcare will be slow, inefficient and expensive compared to what we have today
Hardly an argument as you don’t cite anything, just a gut feeling. Other nations have managed to prove that government run health care can be done well, see Australia, Japan, Canada, etc and they do it for less (Are you really saying that it’s more expensive? We spend more on health care than any other nation and we don’t even have universal coverage!)
The argument for government funded healthcare is primarily being raised here by people who don’t pay the highest income tax, therefore will have the least negative effect by it.
99% of all Americans aren’t in the highest income tax bracket, shame we have that whole Democracy thing. Why don’t we have a wealthy oligarchy making decisions for us? Many many wealthy Americans are in favor of government option health care or single payer health care because they own businesses and they argue that it will make the American economy more efficient.
The government healthcare plan will ration (either by straight out denial, or by long waiting times or other bureaucratic hurdle)healthcare much more than the private system does today.
For many Americans there is currently the longest waiting time: they’ll never get the treatment because they’ll never afford it OR they have a “pre-existing” condition and won’t receive coverage for it.
Three sub-points on this:
1) in many countries (Australia, New Zealand, Japan) the wealthy can purchase supplementary insurance that removes waiting times. This insurance plus health care taxes is still much less than what decent comprehensive insurance in the States costs because actual competition can occur.
2) The percentage that experience wait times in Canada yearly (I’ve seen the statistic of 00.7%) is smaller than the percentage of Americans who are uninsured or underinsured and need treatment.
3) Currently insurance companies already ration health care.
The majority of people without health insurance today could be covered under the CURRENT system.
Wuzzah wuzzah? How are their pre-existing conditions covered? How are those who have had diseases who get their premiums raised to the point of de-facto cancellation covered? Do you have some citations to back this one up? I’d like to pick those apart and see if it’s the same as some of the statistics Quaker dissected earlier.
crap. OW ate my post with all my citations.
Ask him to find it….
Shorter usualsuspect: I got nuthin’.
Ask him to find it….
And thus we arrive at the other conservative rebuttal after they’ve played the “Even if I’m wrong on all my specific points, I’m still right in a universal, abstract sense”: “There are facts that support my claims, I swear, but you have to look them up yourselves.”
Sometimes I wonder. Conservatives: Morons or comic geniuses?
If you would be so kind as to explain to me exactly how I can send you links when oliver’s site eats them, I will be happy to supply them to you.
Here’s one try
This backs up what I was saying about most of the currently uninsured being insurable
http://epionline.org/studies/oneill_06-2009.pdf
Here is the one on canadian wait times
http://www.fraserinstitute.org/commerce.web/product_files/WaitingYourTurn2008.pdf
I don’t have the interest to try to explain these again. Knowing you guys, you will ignore the evidence anyway.
I don’t have the interest to try to explain these again. Knowing you guys, you will ignore the evidence anyway.
Classic.
Fraser Institute??? Man, are you allergic to credibility?
so you read them Farf? Thought not.
Any cites to demonstrate why the Fraser institute is not credible? Or is this just a drive-by smear?
Same old OW crowd. Every post moves a goal post, when you get the ball over the line they claim it isn’t a regulation ball.
knuckleheads.
Oh, and here is the last cite
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1395928
just for the sake of completeness.
The first cite looks pretty good, but you shoulda quit while you were ahead, Peed’.
I mean, John “Mary Roush” Lott, fer the luvva Pete?
http://cp24.com/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20090626/090626_BABY_PASSPORTS/20090626/?hub=CP24Home
How about this quaker? Another example of the fact that our system is a “relief” valve to care for the sickest patients that the Canadian system can’t handle.
“Michael, did you notice that none of my assumptions were refuted?”
You mean by me? Why bother refuting idiotic rhetorical devices that you learned in Sociology 101? That’s how the Hannitized think – make an assumption/accusation and then build castles in the sand. Because people who pay less taxes want health care coverage, they want health care coverage because they pay less taxes? That’s what you’re saying, in that instance. That fucking invisible hand that forms the foundation of your thinking doesn’t exist. It’s public policy to either fund health care or to not fund it. The right always talks about freedom of choice but they always bow to that invisible hand when it suits them. We either are free or we are not. Public policy is where the fighting happens.
“Any cites to demonstrate why the Fraser institute is not credible? Or is this just a drive-by smear?”
Here’s one – I’ve met many at parties throughout the years and they are social misfits. They are uncomfortable in their own skin and fear their shadow. They believe in war but have never been to one. They believe in free enterprise but have never taken any risks in that sphere. They’re Canadian but want to be Americans. They’ve gone to publicly funded schools but are against them. I’ve met a few, I know.
Oh, you know, cause you met them at parties and they weren’t the cool kids?
Ok, scratch that well documented and sourced piece of research!
And what I am saying is that people who pay less tax would like their first-class, government health insurance paid for by someone else. And are happy to vote themselves into someone elses wallet to get it.
The rest of the invisible hand stuff is pure gobbledy-gook, yet another attempt to avoid my answers to your questions.
Peedro, the relative merits of the current U.S. system vs. the Canadian system might be an interesting discussion for some, but it’s really not that important to me.
Here’s where I stand:
The amount of money I pay for health insurance for myself and my family has gone up quite a lot over the last 10 years. I’m down to holding onto high-deductible, major catastrophe type coverage and paying for the routine stuff out of pocket. So far, that works just fine for me, but I don’t see much wiggle room from here. If costs go higher, there’s no relief in sight.
In addition to the amount I pay personally, we as a country spend way more per person on health care than any other industrialized country. Our health outcomes aren’t proportionally better, and by some measures they’re not as good as other countries.
Any proposal for “reform” that involves spending more on health care–personally or as a nation–isn’t interesting to me. I’m sure the reasons for our costs are more complex than anyone here has explained so far. I suspect that our system of employer-provided insurance is part of the problem. I know, from family members, that the paperwork shuffle demanded by insurance companies is part of the problem as well.
Do we have too many uninsured people in the U.S.? I don’t really know. Your first cite does a pretty good job of digging into the question. (However, what you and I take away from that paper is very different. The number of involuntarily uninsured families with children would be my first priority on this question.) Anyway, I think covering the uninsured is an important, but secondary issue in the reform debate. We gotta address costs first.
Usual, I was well into the first citation when I returned to see your comment that you would not be expending any time to actually argue the validity of any claim made in your own citations.
What I find most suspect in the first citation is how it defines “voluntarily uninsured.” it assumes anyone in a certain income group without insurance must have voluntarily opted out of coverage. No consideration of pre-existing conditions, no mention of other expenses such as student loans, outside of food and housing, no mention of the actual costs of health insurance plans in any particular state. So it’s a little vague, too say the least.
The study also only seems to “substantiate” one of the three claims you make about “70 percent” of the uninsured population. Unless you want trouble yourself with citing a specific passage from the report?
Aside from all that, the study was produced by an “institute” that also traffics in anti- minimum wage “research” and nothing else. So nice job on finding a “non-partisan” study.
Again, classic hack work, Amused.
hey guys, 5 of most important romanian hospitals wont receive pills anymore because of debts…thats a real health issue
Quaker in a Basement & Fafaroo, eloquent as always.
And what I am saying is that people who pay less tax would like their first-class, government health insurance paid for by someone else. And are happy to vote themselves into someone elses wallet to get it.
Isn’t Obama’s plan mainly paid for by the individual? What are you railing against here? Some theoretical plan that hasn’t been announced?
If the system does cost those in higher tax brackets a bit more but it makes a better, safer, healthier society and work force would conservatives cut off their noses to spite their faces?
Fewer (by percent) of Canadians have any discernible wait times than just the percentage of Americans who are uninsured and need care (primary source even):
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/060711/dq060711c-eng.htm
http://www.amsa.org/uhc/MythsAboutUninsured.pdf
When Canadians actually do have to wait the percentage is really low on whether they felt the wait effected their lives.
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/070309/dq070309c-eng.htm
Hypothetical: If the United States was capable of providing a system where it was cheaper for every American to get universal coverage with the standards and speed that well insured Americans currently receive, would you support that?
I just want to check if it just comes down to libertarian principles and no argument of efficiency, cost, humanity, national productivity, competitiveness or even self-interest would persuade you. That’s the glimpse I need in to the other side, it’d be nice to know where the line is drawn.
The fact that our system will pay to send patients to the US or further when our doctors believe there are better specialists for a given intervention somewhere else speaks for our system, not against it. Same if the demand exceeds supply at any point – which can happen considering how demanding are the treatment of some illnesses like cancer: what wrong do you see in making sure the patients get what they need?
You know one of the big problem our system is currently facing? US citizens frauding their way into it. Because fake IDs are cheaper than treatment in their homeland. Sad that they have to commit a crime to get what every human deserves.
About the Fraser Institute: first, they are a conservative think tank, professional spin doctors, not a research institute. They make recommendations on welfare using figures like a 90$ monthly rent for a two bedrooms appartment in their calculations, just the first example coming to mind (I don’t believe in walls of text in comment pages so I won’t rant on) Conservative politicians can use their “studies” to back their ideology, that’s their one and only purpose. And it only works as long as one doesn’t look into their methodology or the overall quality of their works.
I like the cut of your jib Quaker.
So lets just look at our current systems inefficiency.
First: A tort system run amok. Until we can get the trial lawyers out of the way (They are the single largest contributor to the democratic party, and Obama has said he has no plans to reform malpractice), there will be billions spent on defensive medicine. These are very difficult numbers to catch by the way, as there is often no visible marker that it is “defensive”. Most of the decision-making goes on in the head of the doctor.
Second: An insurance system run amok. Medicare and insurance companies require reams of paper and documentation. More than 10-12% of a physicians income is spent collecting money’s owed! The average accounts receivables runs over 60 days for uncontested bills.
Your point about the uninsured children actually demonstrates my other point that Farfaroo mentions. Those children are ELIGIBLE to be insured via SCHIP programs, and represent part of the currently unisured that are in fact eligble for coverage TODAY.
You want to fix 1,2 above, you will cut billions from the cost of medicine, nearly overnight.
Farfaroo a lot of my argument is small government based, but not rigidily so.
But your argument should be the same. You and your pals here are constantly claiming that Bush messed up this or that federal program.
If you believe that, do you really want the next republican administration to come in and screw with your healthcare? You guys are argueing out of both sides of your mouth.
Matante, your conclusion is flawed in the face of this argument.
Yes, it is nice Canada has a rich uncle to the south with a guest room.
My point is that Canada can afford to maintain a substandard system, because it is cheaper to TURF someone south of the border, than it is to have an appropriate number of beds, etc.
As soon as we “go canadian”, we won’t have that excess anymore, because we will be trying to save money too. That means that either canada spends more, or the people living there get less (i.e. there is no be for the preemie….sorry charlie).
So, Canada, and the rest of the socialized medicine world, lives off the engine of the american medical system which produces the most drugs, technology and highly trained physicians than anywhere else in the world. And we foot the bill for it too.
Now if you want to argue that we are doing too much, and you think we shouldn’t be producing and using this advanced care, well, then make that argument.
For any one who hasn’t got it yet, I will make it plain: The government has never gotten involved in a pre-existing enterprise , and then improved it. If they did, it was a rara avis , indeed.
So it is highly unlikely that they will improve either health care or its delivery. This means that a) a government bureaucracy will stand between you and your health care, and b) the cost of it, as paid by all of us — and I mean, all of us — will increase.
So, we will be getting the same health care, or worse; the same delivery system, or worse; and the same price, or higher.
So, who needs it?
Game, set, and match.
It doesn’t save money at all to send someone off to get the new surgery only one surgeon in the continent happens to have experience in yet or what not. It’s very expensive. But our system believes in trying to save patients, not just make profits off them, silly!
Sure your country is guaranteed never to have too many patients. If demand increases, prices increases, you’ll never meet the problem of increasing services as fast as needs, it’s a lot easier to call victory if the bar is set this low.
Of course, we had conservative governments who attempt to reduce every service to make the private variant look attractive, and currently the system is underfunded, but it’s completely erroneous to say it’s due to the nature of the system when it’s a political decision from a rather lousy government.
No, it is much cheaper. For things that are rare, to train and support that asset is tremendously expensive, much cheaper to outsource it on a case by case basis, that is common economics.
But lucky you! As a Canadian, you can simply hop on down to the US where they are footing the bill. Sort of like defense, but that is a different story…..
Again, we see that when there is a “lousy government”, the medical care suffers. Is that what the lefties in the US want, their medical care at the whims of the next evil Boooosh?
LOL,
Game, set, match. Indeed. Only if you factor in past performance and present reality. As P.J. O’Roarke put it so eloquently; If you think healthcare is expensive now, wait until it’s free.
Note to Quaker: If I read your situation correctly you are relying on catastrophic insurance presently. Examine the pre existing condition portions of your policy, you may be subject to a waiting period if you switch to more conventional policies. The devil is always in the details. I put everything into a spread sheet and crunched the numbers. My choice was a high deductable 70/30 plan. Not perfect, still costs money, still has risk.
I don’t think anyone here thinks healthcare isn’t expensive. Technology costs money. Lawyers cost money. Research costs money. Everything costs money. Speaking for myself I honestly don’t believe federal involvement will make things better. See PJ’s remarks above.
Your point about the uninsured children actually demonstrates my other point that Farfaroo mentions. Those children are ELIGIBLE to be insured via SCHIP programs, and represent part of the currently unisured that are in fact eligble for coverage TODAY.
Usual, this last claim is not supported by any of the links you presented. Indeed, the study on the uninsured you linked to specifically states:
And this statement:
is just ridiculous.
Usual, you have been suggesting that the Canadian health care system doesn’t work and Michael Over Here keeps telling you that it would run better if it was fully funded but conservative governments keep defunding it.
It’s talking out of both of your mouth, Usual, to say that government doesn’t work, on the one hand, and then not give it the resources to work, on the other.
It is not talking out of both sides of your mouth to sat the national health care is necessary and that it needs to be fully funded.
You’re clearly floundering at this point.
Say Fafaroo,
Completely off topic But I note with pleasure the ruling this morning on Ricci.
Perhaps Ollie might post on this subject today. While the court did not properly use the 14th amendment to completely gut the concept of legalized discrimination the ruling none the less was a step towards a country ruled by law. Regarding your past arguements “You’re clearly floundering at this point.”
because it is cheaper to TURF someone
Peedro, I have had my doubts about the way you present yourself. No longer. The only people I have ever come across who use this terminology are medical industry insiders.
Regarding your past arguements “You’re clearly floundering at this point.”
And you still have no understanding of the case, the appeals court decision or, now, the Supreme Court decision.
Right.
Right.
okay, Amused, explain to us all then, in your own words, why the Supreme Court decided the way it did.
Fafaroo,
Unless Ollie is even more intellectually dishonest than normal, this topic will get it’s own posting and thread.
At that time and place I will gladly dissect the minutia of the case. In the meanwhile you can bone up on what equal protection means and search for missing astericks. While as I note earlier the court did not kill this abomination once and for all with a strong and wide ruling based upon the 14th Amendment, it is a step in the right direction.
So in order to change the subject from health care and the right wing enabled looting of our health care system that has put US behind dozens of other countries on multiple health-metrics, the right wing white supremacist “Amused Observer” “note[s] with pleasure the ruling this morning” where the right wing activist Justices ruled on behalf of the white males.
It’s a shame that the right wing activist Justices decided to make law instead of following the law.
But it’s a bigger shame that the right wing whiners about ‘judicial activism’ don’t have the consistency of conscience to call out the right wing activist Justices who are ‘making law’.
But then cognitive dissonance is the cornerstone of right winger’s psychology.
After all, right wingers have a hard time calling out domestic terrorists blowing up clinics but at the same time right wingers won’t support a public option for the health of infants.
Nuts.
[corrected end italics]
So in order to change the subject from health care and the right wing enabled looting of our health care system that has put US behind dozens of other countries on multiple health-metrics, the right wing white supremacist “Amused Observer” “note[s] with pleasure the ruling this morning” where the right wing activist Justices ruled on behalf of the white males.
It’s a shame that the right wing activist Justices decided to make law instead of following the law.
But it’s a bigger shame that the right wing whiners about ‘judicial activism’ don’t have the consistency of conscience to call out the right wing activist Justices who are ‘making law’.
But then cognitive dissonance is the cornerstone of right winger’s psychology.
After all, right wingers have a hard time calling out domestic terrorists blowing up clinics but at the same time right wingers won’t support a public option for the health of infants.
Nuts.
Damn Newsy, you are flat out dumb. And Farfaroo I figured you could google SCHIP yourself
New Estimate Supports the President’s SCHIP Reform Principles
This estimate reaffirms that the President’s proposal to target an appropriate amount of funding for covering low-income children is the responsible approach for SCHIP reauthorization.
* SCHIP has been a success. Since its enactment, the number of uninsured children living in low-income families (between 100 percent and 200 percent of the poverty level) fell by 25 percent, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
* This Administration has added some two million low-income children to the program in the past six years.
* The Administration’s SCHIP reauthorization proposal strengthens the commitment to providing health insurance to low-income, uninsured children. The proposal:
o Re-focuses the program on its original aim of providing health coverage to low-income children at or below 200 percent of poverty (e.g., $41,300 for a family of four).
o Increases the SCHIP allotments by $4.8 billion in new spending over five years to maintain enrollment for priority low-income children.
o Changes the way SCHIP funds are allocated with an improved formula, based largely on what states are actually spending on children in the targeted population, that would more accurately direct resources to needs.
BUSH signed the damn legislation supporting public health benefits for infants….It.Has.Been.Done By a republican!
Now get back on lexis-nexis and educate you damn self
Wait, I’m going to pull a usualsuspect here and start stomping my feet because none of my points were responded to. I even provided primary sources, not think take studies!
Democratic President Clinton signed SCHIP.
Would you like to try again?
I’ll concede that right winger “conservo’s” falsehood is likely a result of, in their own words, that they “are flat out dumb”, but I’ll consider the possibility that “conservo” isn’t dumb but rather that “conservo” is just a flat out liar.
“President Bush Signs SCHIP…..”
http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?DR_ID=49607
sorry Michael, I just assumed that you didn’t even read your own cites which say things like:
Between 2003 and 2005, median waiting times for all specialized services under study remained relatively stable at between three and four weeks. (The median is the point where exactly one half of waiting times are higher and one half lower.) Most individuals reported they received care within three months, which was also relatively unchanged.
the AMSA study was unreadable; it is simply an opinion piece.
If you think that people with insurance should reasonable wait more than a month just to see a specialist…and you consider that good quality care…well, I suspect you stand in the minority of americans
In the meanwhile you can bone up on what equal protection means and search for missing astericks. While as I note earlier the court did not kill this abomination once and for all with a strong and wide ruling based upon the 14th Amendment, it is a step in the right direction.
While you’re at it, you should note that the Court basically concurred with the lower court decision: That once the Title VII issue was resolved, there was no need to address the Constitutional question. This was a central complaint from conservatives about the appeals court decision and the Supreme Court rejected it out of hand.
What the Court did today was find that the city of New Haven did not meet the standard for determining disparate impact when it threw out the test, thus court established a higher standard for future decisions.
Most individuals reported they received care within three months, which was also relatively unchanged.
When they experienced any wait at all, which as the article points out is exceedingly rare. It’s clear that your misreading the statistics because you quote that the median time is 3 weeks but then also take the “within three months” to mean that everyone is taking 3 months, ignoring the word “within” meaning ‘less than’.
Did you even look at the statistic of the number of Canadians experiencing wait times?
the AMSA study was unreadable
I understand that the Q&A format must be confusing to you. It does point to studies that show the number of Americans without insurance who need treatment, something I was using to contrast with the Canadian statistics.
The amsa study is unreadable because it is a left wing opinion piece that cherry picks data.
Please give me chapter and verse where it says that “wait time is exceedingly rare”.
If you have a non-life threatening, but debilitating illness, within 3 months to get treatment is not a standard to shoot for. In fact, it would simply not be tolerated in this country.
If you have a non-life threatening, but debilitating illness, within 3 months to get treatment is not a standard to shoot for. In fact, it would simply not be tolerated in this country.
Yes it is. It’s openly tolerated all the time. Claims are refused by insurance companies all the time. Americans without health coverage, or even sucky coverage, go without necessary treatment to debilitating illnesses. 18,000 Americans die every year because they have no insurance. Seriously, what America do you live in?
The one where I am a doctor and I tell you your are full of it and don’t know what you are talking about, that America.
Right winger “conservo” joins the ranks of right wing liars.
By right wing magic, the SCHIP program created in 1997 and signed into law by Democratic President Clinton, is credited to Republican President Bush who wasn’t sworn into office until 2001.
We’ll assume that everything else right winger “conservo” says has similar credibility.
” 18,000 deaths blamed on lack of insurance.”
Add right winger “usual ‘Republican’ suspect” to the ranks of right wing liars.
Note, too, that that study was from 2002 when there were fewer Americans without health insurance.
The number is likely significantly higher now.
As usual, Newsy reads the headlines, but isn’t so hot at critical thinking. Correlation doesn’t prove causation.
The fact that they didn’t have insurance doesn’t mean they could not receive care. I have seen many people who simply refuse to avail themselves of services. You can’t force a diabetic to lose weight, watch their diet or take medicine. Same with hypertensives. In fact, one would expect that people with poor jobs or none at all (although theoretically they should be eligible for government assist health care, perhaps they simply didn’t sign up for it?)are the people also least likely to care properly for themselves.
Perhaps Newsy is suggesting we lock people up and FORCE them to take their medicine?
And, in other news …
I, too, would like to hear more about how 18,000 deaths can be attributed to lack of health insurance…
Do you mean 18,000 people who are uninsured die each year?
Say, by being in car accidents, being hit by buses, or shot by some miscreant?
Perhaps they die in their sleep, or from an incurable illness?
Please, please ! Make some connection between not having medical insurance and dying…
The only possibility I can imagine is that there is a serial killer out there who confronts people at random, and threatens them : “If you can’t prove you have Medical Insurance, I am going to kill you!”
There are either a whole bunch of such killers, or they are WAAAAAAAYYYY busy !