Blogs and Stories
Health Care's Air War
Dave Bartruff
As Congress goes on vacation, tens of millions of dollars will be spent on TV commercials debating the overhaul bill. The Daily Beast's Benjamin Sarlin on which side is coming out on top.
Health-care reform will lower your premiums. No, it's a tax on small businesses. If you like your plan, you can keep it. Really, heath-care reform is a Trojan horse for Canadian-style health care. It's also about showing those insurance company villains who's the boss. And about closing the deficit. Actually, it’s going to explode the deficit. It will jump-start the economy. You're all missing the point, it's a secret plot to convince senior citizens to kill themselves.
The Democrats, said Paul Begala, “need to follow the lead of President Obama: Get their asses on offense and keep them there.”
Welcome to August! Usually the sleepiest month in terms of political news—Congress is gone until September—but this year, dozens of political players are bombarding Americans with competing health-care messages.
So far, this year has seen about $65 million in spending on health-care-related advertising, according to Evan Tracey, president of the Campaign Media Analysis Group. Tracey estimates groups could spend $8 million a week combined on TV, radio, print, and online advertising this month.
Given the cacophony, finding an effective voice can be difficult. It's an issue the Obama White House has struggled with, shifting messages to meet new criticisms of its plan. First, Obama’s emphasis was on how reform would lower costs, then came a series of sound bites and addresses designed to persuade insured Americans that they would benefit from the plan as well.
Lately, the message has shifted the focus from future benefits under health-care reform to the players who benefit from the system today, which White House pollsters believe is a winning dynamic. The president now frequently invokes the insurance industry as a boogeyman and has gone after Republicans like Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC), who mused over the political benefits of defeating Obama's agenda (“It will break him”), by portraying them as self-interested obstructionists.
Outside groups backing health-care reform are also using the insurance industry as a foil. Recently, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee began running ads targeting moderate Democratic senators like Montana's Max Baucus and Nebraska's Ben Nelson, highlighting their donations from interest groups. Another group, Americans United for Change, is running ads highlighting insurance executives' hefty salaries.
Americans United for Change Mocks Salaries of Health Care Executives
According to Democratic strategist Paul Begala, keeping pressure on the anti-reform side is the White House's best hope at coming out of the August war with the necessary momentum to pass a bill.
“It is the Republican plan the Democrats should put on trial, the GOP status quo plan for rising premiums, rising co-pays, rising deductibles, rising costs, and declining coverage,” Begala told The Daily Beast. “They need to follow the lead of President Obama: Get their asses on offense and keep them there.”
The Right Dumps Carrie
Jacob Bernstein is a senior reporter at The Daily Beast. Previously, he was a features writer at WWD and W Magazine. He has also written for New York magazine, Paper, and The Huffington Post.
What's Joe's Problem?
Lloyd Grove is editor at large for The Daily Beast. He is also a frequent contributor to New York magazine and was a contributing editor for Condé Nast Portfolio. He wrote a gossip column for the New York Daily News from 2003 to 2006. Prior to that, he wrote the Reliable Source column for the Washington Post, where he spent 23 years covering politics, the media, and other subjects.
Geithner's Stock Plummeting
Jeff Madrick is a contributor to the New York Review of Books and a former economics columnist for the New York Times. He is editor of Challenge Magazine, visiting professor of humanities at Cooper Union, and senior fellow at the New School's Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis. He is the author of Taking America, The End of Affluence (Random House) and The Case for Big Government.
Sarah Palin, Creationist?
Benjamin Sarlin is a reporter for The Daily Beast. He previously covered New York City politics for The New York Sun and has worked for talkingpointsmemo.com.
10 Palin Hits the Leakers Missed
Benjamin Sarlin is a reporter for The Daily Beast. He previously covered New York City politics for The New York Sun and has worked for talkingpointsmemo.com.
Samuel P. Jacobs is a staff reporter at The Daily Beast. He has also written for The Boston Globe, The New York Observer, and The New Republic Online.
The Man Who Beat Glenn Beck
Benjamin Sarlin is a reporter for The Daily Beast. He previously covered New York City politics for The New York Sun and has worked for talkingpointsmemo.com.
This user is no longer registered.
Loss of freedom is cause for real fear
Government taking more and more control away from citizens is cause for real fear
Freedom of speech being limited is cause for real fear
We don't have to fear lack of health insurance, most everyone in the US is already covered in one way or another.
We do ned to fear the trampling of the consitution and becoming comrades of the State
Quick question: How is an increase in choice and protection against corporate greed the same as the "Government taking more and more control away from citizens"? Wouldn't that be the government giving us more control over healthcare? The CBO came out and said that, based on any of the current bills being worked on, in 10 years 96% of the population would have private insurance. Only 4% would use the public option. No matter how you slice it that's 100% coverage in the nation. And that's more than we have now.
So..are you against public schools? the post office? roads and bridges? airports and rail transport? police and fire service? national defense? These are all things that are provided by the government and we are lucky to have them! Providing our citizens with decent affordable healthcare is just as important as providing them with K-12 education and if you think government run health care will be more expensive than private insurance I invite you to send all your future mail with FEDEX rather than the postal service.
Freedom? Control? You only have as much freedom and control as you can buy, and even then it's only the freedom to choose your chains. Let your job go to an overseas boiler room because your ex-employers are exercising THEIR freedom, lose your health insurance unless you can afford some insane COBRA payments, and two months later find a strange lump on your body. THEN come talk to me about fear.
Of course you have to fear lack of health insurance. 14,000 people are losing it every day with their jobs. That's a pretty backwards system.
"We don't have to fear lack of health insurance, most everyone in the US is already covered in one way or another."
Duh... Not if you lost your job or your coverage, like MILLIONS of US citizens.
"We do ned to fear the trampling of the consitution and becoming comrades of the State"
Learn to spell. Its "need" not "ned" and its "constitution" not "consitution".
Why are US citizens so afraid of their government?
Everywhere else but in the lowest Third World Hell hole, its the governments who are afraid of their citizens.
So we're just going to stick our heads up our asses and pay The CEO of CIGNA more per hour than their health bills are likely to run in a year?
Why? Because we stupid illiterate cretins?
This user is no longer registered.
If you enjoy government bureaucracy at the
Department of Motor Vehicles,
then you'll love bureaucratic Government Healthcare.
Will your elderly parent need a hip replacement ?
Guess what, some government "community organizer"
will decide if your parent is " Worthy. "
GET IN LINE AND TAKE A NUMBER.
22,000 uninsured Americans die every year. Should they be afraid of losing freedom?
I find it interesting that some people here use the Canadian style of healthcare as a scare tactic. Well, I live in Canada. I have elderly parents and a grandson who has had 3 surgeries. I am so thankful that I don't live in the US (even though I was born there and could go back if I wished to). In Canada, we are not told which hospitals or doctors to use. That is totally untrue. My mother in her 80's was treated immediately after a stroke. She was not turned down because of her age. My grandson's surgeries were not delayed and he received expert care. Waits for elective surgery are not the length of time being reported in the American media. And, none of us had to mortgage our homes to pay for the health care received. There is no deductible to pay. Some Provinces have no monthly premiums at all. In BC, it is less than $100 / month. Nobody is turned down when they come to emergency at any hospital. So what is so frightening about our healthcare system? What you have now would terrify me.
I
When the GOP killed Clinton's health bill, many more Americans then had affordable health insurance. Now the majority of Americans are struggling to pay health insurance premiums and co-pays so they're no mood for the Republicans anti-government health care propaganda. The GOP will commit political suicide with what's left of its middle base opposing Obama's health initiative.
It will be
A real magic trick
If the GOP can once again
Convince those who can least afford it
To vote against
Their own best interests.
Rita: On target. Funny, I haven't seen Plant poking incessantly at the responders of this story. If she's not the first poster in line, she can't set the tone. Maybe she's feeling deprived, while I'm feeling relieved.
Plant a she?
That's a chilling notion
I hadn't considered.
No.
That's not in the realm
Of possibility.
The Plant is busy at the moment with a number of Town Hall Meetings
Yeah. Conservatives must be highly conflicted. The GOP screws them economically, but it lets them keep their hatred of gays, immigrants, and that damn n*gg*r in the White House.
The choice for the American people is too trust the Republican Party and the Healthcare Insurance industry or to trust Obama.
The Republican Party is using it's usual lies and fearmongering on behalf of their Healthcare Industry patrons to prevent the American people from getting something they desperately need - Affordable healthcare.
Obama's healthcare initiative with of having a public option along with private healthcare insurance is not "radical" or "revolutionary." It's the reality in most western, industrialized states in the world - and they deliver healthcare coverage to all their people at half the cost that ours does.
If a person is rational, all they have to do is look at how fast their private healthcare insurance premiums have grown in the past ten years. If that doesn't scare you more than the Republican's lies, then continue to enrich the profiteering private insurance companies, until the day you will no longer be able to afford it.
The rest of us will be paying much lower premiums to the public healthcare option.
"The choice for the American people is too trust the Republican Party and the Healthcare Insurance industry or to trust Obama."
What a dreadful choice!!!
Enjoy you're public healthcare option - and the trillions of dollars it will cost. But hey, some one else will pay for it, right? 5 out of 6 Americans have health insurance, but if Obama the God tells you that this is an emergency and in the countries best interest, than anyone who thinks otherwise is a corporate shill using the pretense of individual freedom as an excuse to pillage fellow citizens.
As long as Uncle Sam's takes care of you from cradle to grave everything is going to be OK. Heck, look how great Social Security, Amtrak, USPS, Medicare, NAFTA, Cash for Clunkers, etc... have worked out. Why WOULDN'T we want to hand over control of 1/6 of our economy and put bearcats in control of our healthcare? In Pelosi I trust.
Typical lies from Fox News and Rush Limbaugh. With private insurance, we are paying twice as much per capita as any other country on earth, yet we rank only 37th in best health care and 50th in longevity.
Are you saying that Americans are too stupid to do what every other industrialized country on earth has succeeded in doing?
By the way, the 22,000 uninsured Americans who die each year probably do think that this is an emergency.
Interesting commentary on the role of advertising. Obama's successful key messages and those reinforced in ads during the campaign (hope, change) were vague allowing for personal interpretation.
Ritarita: It won't be a "magic trick" if the GOP fools Americans into rejecting a public healthcare measure. It will just be another, in their long line of "dirty tricks."
I think this is the first time I've seen Democrats on the offense since a long time.
Recess Rally - Nationwide Rally against socialized Medicine 8/22/09
(this grassroots effort is really astro turf)
Rachel Maddow exposes the big money backers posing as average Americans
behind the anti-health care reform event "Recess Rally." ... recessrally.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXjiMmXOrBM
NOTE: didn't get into the site recessrally.com until 2am, it was very busy. Site lists
every state and rally address. I'll be there 8/22/09 in support of health care reform now.
Premium individual HMO 258/mo increased to 598./mo within the last 8yrs. deductible
and co-pays have also increased.
It should be an easy argument to make. Americans pay more taxes for government-provided healthcare than the British, per capita. You're already paying more taxes than a universal health care system would cost, but only insuring government workers and the military. Plus our private insurance is cheaper since the government chips in the amount they'd be paying if we got it done through the state.
I really don't understand how anyone can make a valid argument against it.
Have you had your meds today? Or do you always babble incoherently in your postings?
Did you only learn to read today? The post was clearly a foreign perspective on our domestic clusterfuck of healthcare.
periscope: I love your personal attacks. It shows that you have nothing useful to contribute.
kayjay: "I really don't understand how anyone can make a valid argument against it."
That's the whole point; anyone CAN'T make a VALID argument against it. Any and all arguments presently being made against it are trumped up nonsense at best or blatant falsehoods at worst!
For the exact reason you stated. If it's accurate that we are "already paying more taxes than a universal health care system would cost" than it's a shining example of how inefficient our government is. When Hillarycare was proposed in '93 the annual cost ran from "$13.5 billion in 1993 reaching $38.3 billion in 2003" - and that was horrifying to people at the time. This plan STARTS at a $1 trillion. Why such a huge disconnect? There's got to be a cheaper way to get people covered. Why not cover private health insurance premiums with tax refunds? Or have the government pay for universal catastrophic insurance to end medical bankruptcies? American's clearly don't want/need this, and it's being jammed down our throat by a nice guy with a nice smile that makes us feel good that we're all so open minded and liberal.
johngaltmateyko: It is not government inefficiencies that make our health care system a disaster - it is the inefficiencies of the insurance, pharmaceutical, and medical industries.
Just as an example, insurance companies have 30% to 50% overhead. This means that up to half the money you (or your employer) pay for your health care insurance goes to profits, CEO pay and bonuses, advertising, researching which people to deny coverage, lawyers fighting to avoid paying claims, etc.
Government-run programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA have overheads of less than 1%, which means much more money is spent actually taking care of sick people.
Does anyone find it ironic that they have pissed away $65 mil this year on advertising with the potential of another $8 mil per week and all the while people are bitching about how we are going to pay for reform?
It's incredible reading the postings on healthcare reform. I suspect none of you posting on this page real have a good understand of healthcare in the U.S. or any other country for that matter.
I have had the unfortunate experience of dealing with a Government run health plan for my parents, the postal workers health insurance. Just trying to change their doctor to a more competent doctor took days of calling doctors that all declined to take them, due to their health insurance. Almost all the doctors told me they took only so many patients from their plan and they wouldn't take any more, due to the low compensation they received. Finally, I was able to basically beg a doctor to take them out of sympathy.
Meanwhile, I have no such problems with my company sponsored plan. In fact I am impressed with how well Blue Cross has handled me and my claims.
Before you embrace a plan that will forever change the healthcare landscape, read the fine print! The fact that the democratically controlled Congress wants to rush any healthcare plan through, should be enough to cause alarm.
Here's an idea, how about proposing new regulation on the insurance companies, provide premium payments for those unable to pay for insurance themselves and reform tort law to allow doctors to reduce their cost for malpractice insurance.
Now that would be health reform I think everybody could agree on!
stop thinking it's not helping.
Oh my, it will take me a while to count all of your logical fallacies.
Some of you will simply have to excuse some of the people who are not aligned with the current health reform proposal if we take umbrage at being characterized as being ignorant, mouth-breathing idiots marching like a mob to the tune of the RNC.
Speaking only for myself I can say with certainty that I know more about healthcare than many who might criticize me for not buying what our leaders are currently trying to sell. I am 64, retired and I pay for my own health insurance -- currently $18,000 per year for a basic policy for my wife and I which has no drug benefits and requires a $2500 per person deductible -- and we are, fortunately, healthy. I know about health care decisions. When I require an MRI I have to pay for it. Pay enough to buy gasoline for a year.
And in 8 months I will begin coverage under Medicare. This will be a real relief both financially and emotionally. And we hear the reformers talk about their main source of savings to offset the costs of their reforms coming from Medicare. Now some of you may be sufficiently medicated to believe that the cost reductions they are suggestions will come from increased efficiency in the plan. Please pass the bong. Reducing Medicare costs means first and foremost reducing benefits.
Straight from our President's lips comes an account of how he would have decided (from a public policy point-of-view) how his own elderly grandmother should be denied access to certain care as a result of her age and health. I have no problem with the concept that there ultimately must be some consideration like this. But I do not remotely trust the government to formulate decisions which appropriately trade off economic and human considerations. Their decisions will always ultimately be political. Remember, these are the same guys that operate the Postal Service and Amtrack. The same guys who dole out money to construct bridges to nowhere. The only remedy citizens have to mitigate the effects of the poor judgment of these guys is to vote them out. But in the ultimate act of political cowardice they are devising a mechanism where the responsibility for making these life and death medical decisions is obscured by a process which will afford our elected officials the protection of absolute immunity from the consequences of the judgment of a few people who ultimately are responsible to no one. A simple up and down vote for an omnibus recommendation of what will be covered and what will not be covered will always allow our elected officials to say that "there was some good in it and some bad -- and I determined that there was more good than bad." There will be no consolation for someone like Obama's grandmother who he would have been denied a treatment her doctor sought.
Surely these decisions have to be made by someone -- but who really trusts our elected officials to make these personal and often painful decisions with anything but their own political interests in mind? The reforms being proposed do not define who will be responsible for denying care to my aged mother-in-law. They do not define where the buck stops. What is being proposed right now is a system where politicians and bureaucrats can simply stand in a circle and point to the next guy as the one responsible for deciding who will live and who will die. Perfect political deniability.
While our current system is deeply flawed in this respect, most of the time, both with Medicare and with private insurance you can at least understand the limits of coverage and who is responsible for the decisions which hurt or help us. And when we disagree with those decisions we have at least a minimal opportunity to seek redress.
While we have the sometimes dubious opportunity to seek legal recourse against doctors who make decisions which harm us (a protection which current health reform proposals apparently preserve) what recourse will we have when the government decides who and what will be treated and when those decisions result in harm to us?
It will make little difference to any of us whether we are killed by the recklessness of a careless doctor or the thoughtful decision of a faceless bureaucrat to deny us life saving care.
So choose to characterize those who do not support the current reform proposals as a stupid mob if you wish. Many of us are painfully (literally) aware that "reducing Medicare costs" means cutting benefits for those of us who need them most. Some of us live healthcare every day of our lives.
You may not agree with us but we are neither uninformed nor mindlessly submitting ourselves to the will of some nefarious political entity -- no more than you are
Your argument has been proven untrue time and again in the USA with Medicare and VA Healthcare, and with the many foreign governments that manage the hybrid healthcare systems in their countries (France, Holland, England - to name a few).
Is seems that despite all the evidence you insist on conjuring up problems that don't exist. Your worst fears about Medicare right now are only speculation, not fact.
And the bottom line is: if we don't control healthcare spending in America, it will bankrupt all of us, including the businesses and the government. We must make a change.
Whether my worst fears are speculation or not, they do literally constitute life and death issues to each of us. We are all entitled to our views on this and the democratic process will take its course. What I find despicable is the characterization made by the Administration and others is that those who disagree with them (and apparently with you) are mindless mobsters incapable of weighing complex issues and coming to different conclusions which pertain to their own needs and concerns. Sort of "why don't you all just shut up and go away."
Whether or not the government is competent, the Administration has made it perfectly clear that the most significant part of cost savings which will fund its initiatives will come from Medicare. The CBO has made it clear that most of those savings will come from a reduction in benefits and not from reducing fraud and waste. This is NOT speculation -- it is a matter of public record.
While the President has represented that everyone who wants to keep their private insurance will be able to do so, that right is substantially diminished when citizens turn 65 and enter the Medicare pool. Those of us are in that pool or who will soon be in it have more than a casual interest in the changes which will result from the Administration's promise to reduce Medicare's costs. Please forgive us -- it is our lives that are at stake.
I am in complete agreement that healthcare spending must be reduced -- after all, I am currently writing checks monthly for the full cost of my healthcare -- something few people in this country really do. I know first hand how costly healthcare is. I am concerned, however, about the reductions in benefits which will result for people like me who will have no other options regardless of what the President may say.
My biggest objection to the proposed means for the government arriving at these savings is that the mechanism chosen (the IMAC committee or whatever) is not directly accountable for individual decisions to anyone. They will make omnibus recommendations for allowable benefits (no doubt under considerable political duress) and rates and the current legislation requires that they be accepted or rejected in total by an up or down vote. There is no meaningful opportunity provided for the people we elect to represent us to, in essence, represent us.
As inadequate as our system is right now, individuals and companies can shop for insurance coverage that provides them with however much or little security they want. I know, I've done it. They can fire their provider. Under the proposed legislation, especially as it pertains to Medicare, this is not an option. And we are left with a system which, once implemented, provides our legislators an easy option for controlling costs -- tell the committee how much they can spend and feign sympathy for people who lose benefits when the omnibus agenda makes the cuts necessary to meet the number. I would accept a government system for controlling costs if the line of responsibility for determining what benefits would be included and how they would be reimbursed placed more responsibility directly in the hands of our elected officials. You want to cut costs -- cut costs. And accept the responsibility for the consequences.
Many of the hysterical nuts who comprise the mob being verbally abused by the Administration are on Medicare or soon will be. And we know that a disproportionate share of the cost of healthcare is incurred by us. There will be changes -- we are not as stupid as you seem to make out. But listening to the President talk about his views on the end of life care for his Grandmother is very discomforting. If it is reflected in the actions of his "health committee" it is more than reasonable to "speculate" that we will face the prospects of a future where care for the elderly is substantially degraded from its current state. To some extent this may be unavoidable. But the legislation proposed seems to me to make those decisions as painless as possible for the bureaucrats and politicians who will make them. These decisions should be faced, but they should be made very, very difficult for the people who have to make them. They should bear the pain that they will inflict on others.
The governments in Great Britain, Canada, France, Germany and even lowly Mexico, Brazil, The Netherlands, Greece end the rest of the OAS and the EU, all capitalist countries, have NO SAY in your choice of doctors, NO SAY in your choice of procedures, NO SAY in your choice of hospitals, but they DO have a say in paying for it.
That why they have SINGLE PAYER systems.
As for the straw-man argument of putting governmental people, people who DON'T have to show their results in a balance sheet at the end of the year, I would ask:
"Who do you trust more, some faceless bureaucrat in Washington who has nothing riding on REFUSING YOU COSTLY treatment, or your local FOR PROFIT insurance company who's corporate bonuses depend on you NOT getting treatment."
First, you might consider moving to one of these places if you believe in their superiority.
Secondly, in response to your rhetorical question I would ask "What interest does a faceless bureaucrat in Washington have in extending a benefit to me when it may conflict with his marching orders to achieve some particular budget number handed him by some idiot legislator?"
Right now (ignoring for the moment issues of waste in the system) we have a healthcare system where costs are driven by defined benefits. What is being proposed is a system where benefits are driven by defined costs (budgets). The current system is unsustainably expensive, but it pretty much allows choices to be made in an atmosphere that avoids conflicts between economic issues and human and ethical issues. When costs are controlled there will be much more of a struggle to deal with those human and ethical concerns. I don't question at all the need to control costs. I am very concerned, however, that the mechanisms provided in current legislation will place more "cost" responsibility on regulators than "ethical" responsibility. Sure, ethical considerations will get lip service, but I find nothing in my reading of the current proposals to lead me to believe that the "bottom line" will not be the driving force in the decision making process.
As for the FOR PROFIT evil motive, the overall generosity of our private medical benefits relative to benefits in SINGLE PAYER systems would suggest that to a large extent it is the purchasers who have the relative upper hand as a consequence of the extensive benefits that they purchase. Yes, those who have the incentive to get evil corporate bonuses may, at times refuse costly treatment. But I can assure you with the highest level of certainty that the extent to which treatments are refused are far higher in single payer systems, and will by definition be higher in the reforms being proposed than under our current system. It cannot be any other way. This is where the bulk of the putative "savings" will come from according to the CBO.
As to trust, perhaps you should look at current polls to see how much "trust" Americans have in their elected representatives -- the ones who are supposed to do the "right thing". Believing that either Republicans or Democrats will anywhere near get it right is truly a triumph of hope over experience.
misterdon: Without the CEO bonuses, profits, and other overhead (anywhere from $6,000 to $9,000 of the $18,000 you pay for health insurance each year), you would be getting a lot more care for your money.
The overhead for Medicare is less than 1%, so who do you think is getting the better deal?
AlanD2: $6,000 to $9,000 of my $18,000 premium goes to bonuses, profits, etc.? According to the 10-K my company filed for 2008 they earned approximately $3 Billion on $81 Billion dollars of revenues. Executive compensation for the top 5 officers amounted to $26.2 million (that's million with an "m") Their direct medical payouts amounted to about $65 Billion. Not great, but not 1/3 to 1/2 of my premium. Anyway you cut it your estimate is pure crap.
"First, you might consider moving to one of these places if you believe in their superiority."
The old, "If you don't like America than you can GETOUT argument." Always classy.
"Secondly, in response to your rhetorical question I would ask "What interest does a faceless bureaucrat in Washington have in extending a benefit to me when it may conflict with his marching orders to achieve some particular budget number handed him by some idiot legislator?""
So you're comparing a situation where a private enterprise has a direct financial incentive to deny you coverage with a hypothetical nightmare scenario where a civil servant denies you coverage to end up 'on budget?' Also, I like how apparently in your world that budget will be set by an 'idiot legislator' and not a genius like the folks down at AIG.
"The current system is unsustainably expensive, but it pretty much allows choices to be made in an atmosphere that avoids conflicts between economic issues and human and ethical issues."
I guess you're technically correct in that people who currently make your healthcare decisions don't even have to pretend to consider the ethical or human side of the issue. Under oath, testifying before Congress, insurance company directors have stated that they don't plan to discontinue the practice of trying to deny sick people with existing policies coverage. While we're on the subject (and for about the 96,512th time), if you already have a policy you will be allowed to keep it. You really really will.
"I can assure you with the highest level of certainty that the extent to which treatments are refused are far higher in single payer systems, and will by definition be higher in the reforms being proposed than under our current system."
I'm assuming you have statistics, peer-reviewed academic articles and detailed case studies to back this up? Or is this down-home hocum small-town wisdom from 'real America?'
"As to trust, perhaps you should look at current polls to see how much "trust" Americans have in their elected representatives."
I wonder how the insurance giants are polling right now.
Too bad they aren't spending the lobbying money on health care.
GOP claim people are happy with what they have. I have several questions:
1. Are people currently denied services because of pre-existing illnesses ?
2. Have your medical insurance cost increased ?
3. If you lose your job will you be able to pay for medical insurance?
4. If you go into the hospital will your coverage pay the bill ?
5. Do you believe the GOP when they claim the Reform will demand old people to plan their death because that would help eliminate the expense.
First and foremost I really do sympathized with Dan047, at the same time I don't feel that every one who is against the current effort for a version of healthcare reform really and completely understands what is on the table. I use to work for a company that processed medical claims electronically to insurance providers. You wouldn't believe the reason's at times why the companies would reject a claim. It would be something as small as a coding error (and they would try to hold the claim long enough so that the provider wouldn't be able to correct it and then resubmit for payment) to something as big as the obvious patient doesn't have sufficient coverage. I'm saying this to say that we shouldn't be afraid of change of any kind, and if we are unclear of the details of what this reform effort has, during this recess we need to demand that information from our reps and senators instead of going on these mob like rants about the evil of a government option. I'm 29 years old, I have a bachelor's in business, and I use to work for a bank until February of this year. So of course that means I don't have medical coverage...the thing that I'm afraid of however is that because I live with HIV that I will be denied from getting coverage because I do have a per-existing condition.
So in that respect I'm according to some will be denied on a government plan if I needed any type of transplant
If reforming healthcare, in the manner, that the president wants? Then it should be able to sell itself. The administration should breakdown and use examples with $ amounts about how it would affect a single mom with two kids, a retired couple, a single person. Compare and contrast. There is no clarity, therefore there is suspicion. Its, the system is bad we need to reform, which is OK and fine with me, but let's make sure we make the correct reforms. Let's define reform, compare and contrast what is good with current system and figure it out. This idea, that Obama says its good and we should do it is nonsensical, and supremely lemming like.And when the President puts deadline on such a subject, it seems that he is hiding something. Why should we trust the government to make personal decisions? I don't care if its Bush or Obama- I don't trust 'em. Unless Obama and I can share the doctor, I don't believe him.
A startling statistic.
The American Medical system stands 29th in the world.
Boy! that is a shocker, is it not!
Unless it has been updated recently, it was 37th in the world, and 50th in longevity.
WASHINGTON - Pressed by industry lobbyists, White House officials on Wednesday assured drug makers that the administration stood by a behind-the-scenes deal to block any Congressional effort to extract cost savings from them beyond an agreed-upon $80 billion.
The industry successfully demanded that the White House explicitly acknowledge for the first time that it had committed to protect drug makers from bearing further costs in the overhaul. The Obama administration had never spelled out the details of the agreement.
"We were assured: 'We need somebody to come in first. If you come in first, you will have a rock-solid deal,' " Billy Tauzin, the former Republican House member from Louisiana who now leads the pharmaceutical trade group, said Wednesday. "Who is ever going to go into a deal with the White House again if they don't keep their word? You are just going to duke it out instead."
A deputy White House chief of staff, Jim Messina, confirmed Mr. Tauzin's account of the deal in an e-mail message on Wednesday night.
"The president encouraged this approach," Mr. Messina wrote. "He wanted to bring all the parties to the table to discuss health insurance reform."
The new attention to the agreement could prove embarrassing to the White House, which has sought to keep lobbyists at a distance, including by refusing to hire them to work in the administration.
The White House commitment to the deal with the drug industry may also irk some of the administration's Congressional allies who have an eye on drug companies' profits as they search for ways to pay for the $1 trillion cost of the health legislation.
But failing to publicly confirm Mr. Tauzin's descriptions of the deal risked alienating a powerful industry ally currently helping to bankroll millions in television commercials in favor of Mr. Obama's reforms.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/06/health/policy/06insure.html
misterdon: I don't recall calling you a "mindless monster" for not agreeing with my take on the healthcare issue - not do I think that is a fair characterization of the Obama administration's handling of dissent.
What I do object to is people being bussed around America to shout down other people who are trying to get information from their democratically elected officials, especially when those people are being funded by the very "for profit" private insurance companies that will lost some of their inflated profits if the public healthcare measure is passed.
And I have no idea what your talking about when saying you want decisions to be painful for politicians and bureaucrats who have to make healthcare decisions or why you compare them to the people who need to receive the healthcare.
This need not be a "painful" experience for anyone. It should be a thoughtful, well constructed program that alleviates the pain of the current system with it's rising costs and denial of coverage to insurance subcribers, not to mention the pain of people with no coverage at all.
You sound fearful and confused, and afraid of change. All I can say is that if you think the situation is bad now, watch what happens if we continue with the current, unsustainable, status quo.
Sorry, Mobster, not monster. The Administration has been as direct as possible describing critics as a mob following some nefarious leaders who are apparently capable of causing them to act in ways that are inconsistent with their free will -- mindless mobsters.
As to your accusation that these idiots are being bussed around America by "for profit' private companies, to you and the Administration I would suggest that you provide proof or shut up. I object to people like you who characterize the actions and motives of others without a whit of evidence. Who is furnishing the busses? Where? Names. Dates. Places.
As to pain, the cowards in congress have devised a mechanism for determining who will receive what benefits in a way where everyone is supposedly accountable and no one is really accountable. Just who among your elected representatives is going to stand up and take responsibility for the inevitable reductions in benefits which will be required to get health costs under control. It is not that I am opposed to cutting benefits -- that is necessary and inevitable.
Lets face it, our cowardly legislators -- Republicans and Democrats -- have already made it clear that they would not accept a provision which would require their coverage to be identical to the coverage that they are proposing for their "public plan" or for Medicare in its present or future gutted form. There will ultimately be reductions in benefits. Those changes will result in unpleasant and unfortunate life and death decisions. Obama has said as much exactly referring to his grandmother. I am sympathetic of rising costs, denial of coverage and the pain of people who lack coverage. But the trade off whether any of us like it will be moral and ethical decisions forced on people who have not had to make those decisions. I have had to make those kinds of decisions and I do not trust anyone's glib representation that "this need not be a painful experience." It is naive in the extreme. I don't know you or your experience with life and death decisions. But if you have never held a loved one's life in your hands, you cannot know why I want those decisions to be painful for the bureaucrats and politicians who are stepping up to the plate to take them out of our hands. It may be necessary -- but it is not a responsibility for people who are incapable of acting like adults.
I fully realize that the current system is unsustainable. That does not assure in any way that the changes that are proposed will be better. It must be changed. But the not every change is necessarily better.
Some people are rich because they worked very hard, they earned it. taking more than half of their pay is wrong. what if someone wanted to take more than half of your pay? I think you would be upset too. You all keep posting numbers about how our health care system is ranked vs other countries. Yet, you fail to point out one very simple fact. when they are seriously ill, they come here for health care.
What the politicians need to work on is bringing the cost of health care down. This bill is not going to make that happen. it's only going to cost more and more over time. It might help some in the short run, in the long run, everyone is going to lose with this bill. They are taxing us every way they can think of now. not only the rich. cigarette tax, soda tax, cereal taxes, Luxury tax, property tax, sales tax, state tax , federal tax, FICA tax and they are thinking of more ways to tax us. surcharge on cell phones and the proposed list of new taxes goes on and on. The health care bill will only add to this list of taxes for everyone. The can't balance the budget with all the money they are taking in now. The way I see it. we should be getting a lot more than we are for the amount of taxes we are paying. This bill will only give the crooks in Washington the right to steal more money from you and get very little in return.
I'm not rich, never have been and probably never will be. But I have never lived off government assistance and don't plan on accepting it anytime soon.
And I sure as hell don't want to pay anymore taxes for a health care program that will be abused with fraudulent claims by doctors as Medicaid/medicare has been.
There are a lot more poor/middle class people than rich people. if you think just the rich are going to be robbed by this bill in it's current form you got another thing coming.
Taxes are bribes that the rich pay to the poor so the poor don't kill them and take their stuff. See, for example, the French Revolution of 1789 (but only if you have a strong stomach).
This user is no longer registered.
This user is no longer registered.
Hey mspodcast, you need to pull the hook, line and sinker out of your throat.
"Who do you trust more, some faceless bureaucrat in Washington who has nothing riding on REFUSING YOU COSTLY treatment, or your local FOR PROFIT insurance company who's corporate bonuses depend on you NOT getting treatment."
Wow, tell me your not that clueless to follow that line of thinking. Send some time in the social security office or your local DMV to see how motivated they are to help you.
At least when a evil insurance company is runnig my medical plan, I have recourse...I can sue them! When the government cost me or a family member my life over their ineptitude. I don't have recourse...I can't sue them!
As for the other comments about these other great medical plans in Canada, France, etc... Check out the waiting lists and services they don't provide before you start expounding on how great they are!
You can sue them? LOL. Puhleeeze!!!! Have you ever tried to sue a big company? I did. I sued Citizens Bank, and let me tell you it was costly, time consuming and until we won the decision I had no idea whether it would be worth it or not.
As it turned out I got back the money Citizens tried to steal from me, but then I had to pay my attorney.
The fact is anyone who is going to sue an Insurance company had better have deep pockets, excellent records and tons of time to waste waiting around before, during and after the legal process.
What a joke!
Try suing the government.
But first, learn to spell s-o-v-e-r-i-e-g-n i-m-m-u-n-i-t-y.
That is not a joke.
misterdon: Methinks your anti-government mythology is showing. The problem with people like you who are biased, even after the facts are given, is that you never admit that you are wrong. No matter how many times you are proven wrong and no matter how egregiously you are proven wrong.
Democrats got it right in the 1930s with Social Security. Without it, most senior citizens today would be impoverished. Democrats got it right with Medicare, without it, most seniors couldn't afford healthcare.
Democrats also got it right when they balanced the budget in the 1990s. Something no recent Republican president seems able to do.
If you want to say that Republicans never get anything right, I'd concede the point. But don't lump everyone in with those losers!
I'd be most pleased to acknowledge that the Republicans never (or at least seldom) get anything right. I am not a Republican. I am a person who is 8 months away from receiving the Medicare that I worked so hard to get. And I find myself in the unique company of the very, very rich upon whose backs the Administration is proposing to build his mighty new health plan. The administration has made it very, very clear that right after the rich, the next source of funding will be reductions in the cost of Medicare -- a proposal which the CBO has indicated will absolutely necessitate a reduction in Medicare benefits.
Realizing that it is too much to expect that people can respect that others may have reasonable doubts about aspects of the administration, I have only the faintest of hopes that one of the many people who are promising the citizens of this country the moon and stars will simply and honestly tell us (Medicare recipients) what exactly we will give up so others may have the "moon and the stars".
I am a strong supporter of Social Security and Medicare, but it is inaccurate to characterize the Democrats as "getting it right" on either one -- especially Medicare with its $57 trillion accrued liabilities. Medicare, especially, was a promise to seniors that they would always be able to afford quality health care. It is clear that that promise is going to be, at the very least, substantially modified. We are neither crazy nor unpatriotic to expect a little honesty as to how the "savings" Obama has promised us are coming from Medicare will effect our lives.
Forgive me if I don't join you crying your crocodile tears for the rich. When I was a young adult, the rich paid a marginal tax rate of 70%. Thanks to the "Raygun revolution" it was reduced to 28%. Meanwhile, the rich saw their wealth and income grow geometrically over the last 25 years, while the middle-class was barely able to keep up with inflation - even though productivity in America skyrocketed. The irrefutable conclusion: peoplel were working harder and smarter and the lion's share of the gains were going to the rich.
Then along came Bushboy and handed the rich another $1 trillion in tax cuts, which they didn't need or deserve.
So if Obama decides to raise taxes slightly on those who have received the bulk of our economy's gains and tax largesses, I won't be shedding any tears.
You however can believe that SS and Medicare would have come about without Democratic leadership, even though recorded history would show that you are wrong ... again.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.