Health Care Reform Is Not A Theoretical Thing
Tweet
Insurance companies are condemning children to death because of what they see on a profit and loss statement. It’s ridiculous.
We’re America, for Christ’s sake. We can do this.
32 Responses to “Health Care Reform Is Not A Theoretical Thing”
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
What Time Is Super Bowl 2012 (Super Bowl XLVI)?
Republican Senate Candidate To Run Racist Ad During Super Bowl
Romney Biographer: Candidate Grew Up In A “Series Of Bubbles”
Latest Entries
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
C.K.: November 22, 1999 – January 7, 2012
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
Anthem Blue Cross is raising rates by 39 percent and repubs think that’s fine
Anthem Blue Cross is raising rates by 39 percent
Hey, we’ve got bonuses to pay? Does anyone ever give a thought to the poor, hardworking corporate elite?
But, but, but… Socialism!!!!
Yes, we’re America alright.
“Greed is good. Greed works”
“The bottom line is the only thing that matters.”
“I got mine, pal, and I am closing the door behind me.”
“It’s all about MY profits.”
“Quit your whining and pull yourself up by the bootstraps”
That’s why our country is perpetually doomed. Money is the only thing that matters. Fucking insurance companies will drop you like a hot stone if they actually have to, you know, insure you. That’s not why they exist. They exist to make money, nothing else matters.
My friend who works at a financial services company nearby tells me that Aetna is raising their insurance premiums by by over 20% this year. This is on top of a double-digit rate hike the previous year as well.
And after all this usurious increases, what services do you get? He had an operation last year, which was at the direction of his Aetna-approved primary care physician, at the Aetna-approved hospital, with the Aetna-approved surgeon. Well guess what; 8 months after the procedure he gets a bill for $2000 because Aetna didn’t like the aenesthesiologist the hospital used! Now tell me how the average person is supposed to be able to know to check every doctor, assistant, and piece of equipment for insurance approval while they’re lying on the gurney?
Then we have other stories like this one:
We are the only major industrial nation where things like the above happen. There are thousands and thousands of stories like this, and they happen every day.
And lest you think that those insurance premiums are going up because of those damn trial lawyers and the need for tort reform, think again. The numero uno reason for insurance spikes? Because our asshole manager class, like our asshole Wall Street class, believed that the stock market and real estate casino would just keep paying forever, so why not throw huge chunks of our reserve capital at the Wall Street roulette wheel? It’s free money! Oops, but when the wheel stopped and the house called its bets, all these companies, including insurance giants, found their magic money stream dried up! “Oh noes! What to do! How can we keep affording those gold plated executive washrooms now! Well, we can always keep raising the rates on the suckers, I mean, the valuable patient clients we care so much about! I mean, what are they gonna do, set up a single payer system and cut us out of the loop?! Haw haw haw!”
“Free market, baby! Pay up or die sucka!” -cons
I’d be interested to see what kinds of arguments the righties have for this case.
al gore is fat, edwards cheated on his wife, clinton did it too. the same arguments they have about everything.
Oh, they will totally ignore this, in their world situations like this doesn’t exist, it’s made up. Never once have I read a post that will agree that “perhaps” in this situation we have a point. Then they will search for a story that will somehow indicate that it’s the fault of the patient, or just plain twist and distort the facts. They are heartless, greedy and mean. Thats the overall conclusion that I’ve come to regarding the conservatives that post on this site. That’s right I said it, heartless, greedy and mean!
They are the types of people who watch “It’s a Wonderful Life” and cheer for Mr Potter.
The Republican health care plan:
James Bond: Do you expect me to pay those rates?
Goldfinger: No, Mr. Bond. I expect you to die.
If only we had a president willing to lead on this issue and take political risks.
‘Because God forbid they should be asked to step up and do something themselves.’
The nerve of this 5 year old to not cure his own cancer; what a leech.
‘Getting a liberal to pick up a check – now that’s impossible!’
Yeah! How DARE his parents expect the insurance provider to honor their payments by actually offering coverage they paid into?
Just one question Rollo? How does Satan’s sphincter taste today?
Exactly. This is much more about compelling insurers to keep their deals. At the very least it’s libertarianism 101. If nobody enforces contracts, that’s not conservatism, that’s anarchy.
I pay about $3500/year currently for my plan, which is pretty good. My employer does the same. In addition, my wife pays several hundred above that for appointments, medication and the like. A government program, paid for by taxes and managed by regulation instead of a whimsical laissez faire system we have now would not cost me this much. Should I slowly go bankrupt to protect your precious principles?
Gosh, if only the US had a cradle-to-grave government run, single payer health care system like the NHS in the UK, we would no longer be condemning children to death.
Because a gov’t bureaucrat condemning a child cancer sufferer to death is so much more humane, noble and justified than when an evil and greedy insurance company does it.
Gosh, if only someone were proposing to replicate the NHS in the US, then this might be relevant.
I’ll let these people explain to us how health care “reform” will eliminate private insurance, which of course will result in the desired (to liberals) single payer gov’t run and controlled health care system.
And don’t forget the Independent Medicare Advisory Panel that Obama is pushing, which will let the gov’t decide which drugs and procedures get paid for (and more importantly, which don’t) in that brand new shiny gov’t health care system.
You’re right. Absolutely NO similarities to the NHS at all.
Or if the article mentioned that children were dying because of the missing drugs… of course that what happens when you take the first Google search result and post it without reading it.
Oh, look. The NHS isn’t perfection. So why should we do anything at all to improve our own system?
The is what you’re arguing, Dave.
It’s a straw man and you should be intelligent enough to realize that.
The is what you’re arguing, Dave. It’s a straw man and you should be intelligent enough to realize that.
No it’s not, Sean. But you do an excellent job demonstrating the real strawman… the one that Obama (and everyone else on the left) are constantly pushing with their “if you’re not 100% behind Obamacare, then you want the status quo”.
I’m all for health care reform. But let’s do it in a way that actually does (1) cover more people, (2) lower costs and (3) improve patient care. As I’ve noted before, here are ten common sense changes that make sense and actually do advance us towards affordable health care for all.
Looking at the NHS is useful because it shows you that single payer, gov’t run universal health care isn’t the magical health care fix this country needs.
You’re right, if the article didn’t mention children then must mean that no children ever die of kidney cancer.
Are you really that dense? Oh wait. “Enlightened Liberal”. Yes you are.
Looking at the NHS is useful because it shows you that single payer, gov’t run universal health care isn’t the magical health care fix this country needs.
People who have it like it. People in Massachusetts are pleased with their state-run health care system. And one anecdotal story doesn’t change that.
And I would like to see a reputable economist go down your list of ideas and say whether it would actually work. My guess is that it wouldn’t.
Oh and Oliver, when you have to use a dead child to try to push your party’s crappy legislation that the majority of the public has made it clear they DO NOT WANT, you’ve pretty much lost the argument.
Exactly so, because those execs are creating jobs with those obscene bonuses and they will save the economy with their hard-earned wealth.
Right? Isn’t that how it works?
People who have it like it.
Right up to the point where the gov’t says it isn’t cost-effective to treat THEIR particular illness. Then, not so much. And athough I admit I have no figures to back it up, I would hazard a guess that more procedures and drugs are disallowed under a gov’t run plan (i.e. NHS) than are under private insurers. Insurance companies do have to be even slightly competitive to stay in business. The gov’t? Not one bit.
People in Massachusetts are pleased with their state-run health care system.
Sure, until (1) they balk at the tax increases necessary to keep it going and/or (2) the system collapses under the weight of it’s own costs. I suspect they won’t be too satisfied at that point.
And I would like to see a reputable economist go down your list of ideas and say whether it would actually work. My guess is that it wouldn’t.
I would suspect those ten changes have a higher likelihood of succeeding in providing affordable health care to more people than ObamaCare does. In fact, the CBO already looked at the ObamaCare legislation and said it wouldn’t lower costs but it would drastically increase the deficit. But for some odd reason, you seem perfectly OK with that.
Liar. He’s not dead. He’s dying.
Right up to the point where the gov’t says it isn’t cost-effective to treat THEIR particular illness. Then, not so much.
Dude, you’re mixed up. You’re talking about private insurers right now. Or have you not been paying attention?
And athough I admit I have no figures to back it up, I would hazard a guess that more procedures and drugs are disallowed under a gov’t run plan (i.e. NHS) than are under private insurers. Insurance companies do have to be even slightly competitive to stay in business. The gov’t? Not one bit.
Conversely, the government does not have a profit motive, while private insurers do. If making a profit is not as important to the gov’t as to a private insurer, why would we expect to see costly procedures disallowed under a government plan? Also, the government does, in theory, have to answer to the citizenry. If things are as bad or worse under gov’t health care, then you can expect that people will let their votes tell the story of what they think. Of course, I don’t see any way that a federal health system could be worse than our current one.
Sure, until (1) they balk at the tax increases necessary to keep it going and/or (2) the system collapses under the weight of it’s own costs. I suspect they won’t be too satisfied at that point.
Hypothetical bullshit. Your whole argument is, “Just wait and see!” When the data on the ground right now tell the story that people are happy. Fact. Your assertion is a prediction, at best. I would venture to say that it’s more of a hopeful, ideologically-driven wild guess.
In fact, the CBO already looked at the ObamaCare legislation and said it wouldn’t lower costs but it would drastically increase the deficit.
I don’t think that this is true. Link?
When you have to use a
deaddying child to try to push your party’s crappy legislation that the majority of the public has made it clear they DO NOT WANT, you’ve pretty much lost the argument.Dave in SC: the one that Obama (and everyone else on the left) are constantly pushing with their “if you’re not 100% behind Obamacare, then you want the status quo”.
This is the “EVERYONE on the left believes Obama = The One and worships him.” approach. Claim “everyone” believes something, despite the fact that clearly “everyone” does not, and then claim everyone is therefore wrong. It’s akin to saying EVERYONE on the right believes the Repubs should block every piece of legislation and never work with Dems no matter what the legislation is.
And you do it while claiming you don’t use strawmen. I can’t tell if it’s chutzpha or you really are so lacking in honesty and self-awareness that you truly don’t understand what you’re saying. Starting, reluctantly, to think it’s the latter.
First off, what exactly is “Obamacare” supposed to refer to . I’ve seen the term thrown around to refer to just about any proposed change, including proposals from different quarters that contradict each other. So what “everyone” is supposedly pushing is…. what, exactly? Second, there are numerous examples of Dems in Congress and left-leaning bloggers arguing with each other as to what should be done to reform healthcare. Single payer or no, public option must be/nust not be included, etc etc etc. So “everyone”? Hardly.
I’m all for health care reform. But let’s do it in a way that actually does (1) cover more people, (2) lower costs and (3) improve patient care.
No argument there. But, as with all things, the disagreements come not with what its to be done, but how to do it.
As I’ve noted before, here are ten common sense changes that make sense
Not too bad a list. Some reasonable proposals, some I don’t agree with, others that won’t really make much difference to the sick public at large. For example: I don’t see that the tort reform peice really solves what folks tend to say is the problem (over simplified: it’s a feast for lawyers and discourages doctors from practicing). And, as commenters have noted, the ten points don’t touch on pre-existing conditions or catastrophic illnesses.
Looking at the NHS is useful because it shows you that single payer, gov’t run universal health care isn’t the magical health care fix this country needs.
And, again, while I’m sure you can find some who’ve said we should be exactly like the NHS, reasonable folks aren’t claiming anything is a one-fix “magical” cure. The NHS isn’t looked at as a flawless example but as one which does do many things much better than our current system, so one we can look to and learn from.
Dave in SC: Right up to the point where the gov’t says it isn’t cost-effective to treat THEIR particular illness.
So, again, it’s the “If it can’t be perfect in all cases we should do nothing to improve it” standard. Someone is going to nto get all that they want, so no improvements should be made for anyone.
Insurance companies do have to be even slightly competitive to stay in business. The gov’t? Not one bit.
Which is why the public University of Massachusetts ran Harvard out of business ages ago, why FedEx closed down the US Post Office way back in ’77 and, most notably, why MediCare has a higher administrative cost and less satisfied customers than any other insurance company.
Except, of course, none of those are true.
So, Dave in SoCal is saying that citing examples as to why we want universal health care neutralizes our argument for universal health care, because some people don’t want universal health care even tho it will benefit people such as the examples mentioned.
Dave in SoCal is a fucking retard. Satirically speaking of course. In reality I hope he gets the care he needs for all those paint chips he’s been ingesting.