Blogs and Stories
The Latest Health Care Lie
Getty Images
Death panels, forced abortions—opponents of health-care reform are now claiming that it will kill women with breast cancer. The Daily Beast’s Michelle Goldberg investigates the right’s latest smear.
Perhaps it’s a sign of progress that the right’s latest line of attack against health-care reform is far subtler than the “death panel” smear. The new conservative talking point is aimed at women rather than seniors, and it has a kind of surface plausibility that may make it particularly effective. Put simply, the right is claiming that Democratic plans to reform health care will lead to more women dying from breast cancer.
This meme has been around for a while; back in June, Sean Hannity claimed that, should health-care reform succeed, “we’re going to have a government rationing body that tells women with breast cancer, ‘you’re dead.’” Now, though, there’s a systematic effort to publicize the argument. The Independent Women’s Forum, a conservative group, is spending over $2 million to broadcast a commercial in eight battleground states, including Colorado, Indiana and Nevada, in which breast-cancer survivor Tracy Walsh warns that health-care reform could kill women like her. Speaking over melancholy piano music, she says, “If you find a lump, you could wait months for treatment, and potentially life-saving drugs could be restricted. Government control of health care here could have meant that 300,000 women with breast cancer here might have died.” In a fundraising email with the subject line “More American Women Are Going to Die,” the IWF invoked “real people who might not make it if President Obama inflicts his nationalized healthcare on America.”
The effort to link health-care reform to breast cancer death is coming from the same people who’ve previously compared health care reform to the Holocaust.
The Independent Women’s Forum is closely linked to Americans for Prosperity, a major organizer of anti-Obama tea parties and town hall protests. (According to Sourcewatch.org, the two groups shared the same address and most of the same operations staff until last year). So the effort to link health-care reform to breast cancer death is coming from the same people who’ve previously compared health care reform to the Holocaust. The new tack sounds slightly more reasonable, and it’s developing legs.
A week ago, The New York Times ran a long, page-one feature about Bob Collier, a Georgia man described as one of the “calmer, more reasoned” opponents of the Democrats’ plans. At a town hall, Collier told Cong. Stanford Bishop that his wife had survived breast cancer through early detection and treatment, but he feared she could be put on a waiting list for care if Obama got his way. The Times story presents the Colliers as rational, ordinary people with “legitimate concerns” about health- care reform. It waits until after the jump from Page One to note that they are committed conservatives who “receive much of their information from Fox News, Rush Limbaugh’s radio program, and Matt Drudge’s website.”
John McCain, another conservative with a reputation for reasonableness, brought up the breast-cancer argument at a town hall last Tuesday. England, he said, has “repeatedly blocked breast cancer patients from receiving breakthrough drugs. … That's what they do there. But obviously we don't want that in this country.”
The entire argument about breast cancer and health care reform is based on a comparison of survival rates in the United States and England. There’s little question that breast cancer treatment is better in the U.S. Last summer, The Lancet Oncology Magazine published a comprehensive international comparison on cancer survival. It found that five years after being diagnosed with breast cancer, American women had an 83.7 percent chance of survival, while those in England had only a 69.8 percent chance. England, which lags behind the U.S. in screening, has a government-run health program, while the United States does not. This is being interpreted as proof that government-run health care leads to more cancer deaths. And that is a dishonest distortion.
Leave aside, for a moment, the fact that no one is proposing single-payer health care in the United States—much to the despair of many liberals. Several countries with socialized medicine have breast-cancer survival rates that are barely distinguishable from our own. According to the Lancet study, Canada’s five-year survival rate is 82.5 percent, and France’s is 79.8 percent. (Both countries also have less breast cancer overall -- indeed, for reasons no one quite understands, the United States has among the highest breast cancer incidence in the world. French women are more likely to survive colon and rectal cancers than American women, though again, the differences are quite small. Meanwhile, the Lancet study shows, one country has a higher breast-cancer survival rate than the United States—Cuba. The study’s authors point out that this could be due to faulty Cuban record keeping. But overall, there’s nothing in the study to suggest that government involvement in health care harms women.
Quite the opposite, in fact. As should be well known by now, American women have a lower life expectancy than those in England, France, Japan, Canada, and several other developed countries. Meanwhile, horror stories about the rationing of cancer care by the American insurance industry abound. In an almost grotesque irony, it turns out that Mr. Collier’s wife endured one of them. Their insurance refused to cover Ms. Collier’s radiation treatments, leaving them owing $63,000 that their hospital eventually wrote off.
Stars Celebrate the Super Bowl
The Daily Beast is dedicated to news and commentary, culture, and entertainment. We carefully curate the web’s most essential stories and bring you original must-reads from our talented contributors.
How Rich People Smoke Pot
Paul Schrodt is a writer living in New York City. He has contributed to New York magazine, Radar, and Esquire.com.
Obama Does It Again
Michelle Goldberg is the author of The Means of Reproduction: Sex, Power and the Future of the World and Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism. She is a senior correspondent for The American Prospect, and her work has appeared in The New Republic, The Nation, the Los Angeles Times, Glamour, and many other publications.
The Haiti Fundraising Lie
Michelle Goldberg is the author of The Means of Reproduction: Sex, Power and the Future of the World and Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism. She is a senior correspondent for The American Prospect, and her work has appeared in The New Republic, The Nation, the Los Angeles Times, Glamour, and many other publications.
A Ray of Hope in Haiti
Michelle Goldberg is the author of The Means of Reproduction: Sex, Power and the Future of the World and Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism. She is a senior correspondent for The American Prospect, and her work has appeared in The New Republic, The Nation, the Los Angeles Times, Glamour, and many other publications.
jamestribe
I'm very glad I live in Australia. We have public and private healthcare running in parallel. While we may not have a perfect health care system, everybody who can't afford or doesn't want to pay for private health insurance still has access to the treatment they need based in the public system based on how urgent they need it.
I follow American politics and issues quite closely, and it seems to me that the Republican party preys on the stupidity and ignorance of the red-neck classes to push forward their own agenda.
Which seems to be based around making themselves and their mates more rich.
roger37
You got it, mate.
Marionetta
Why do people believe this garbage? I live in Canada. I had a lump, suspected malignant. Had all relevant tests within a week. Luckily I'm good. But if I wasn't treatment would have started immediately. Literally. And with no co-pays, recission, high insurance costs or any of the other things American unreasonably endure. We're not a bunch of commies up here; but if any politician tried to lay a finger on our health care they'd be run out of town so fast their head would spin. I just don't understand how people cannot see that healthcare for everyone makes for a healthier nation with a stronger economy. (Shakes head.)
ElLamer
Hear Hear!
How gullible are we as a nation?
Its down right unpatriotic to spread these kinds of lies and oppose changes that will make our country stronger.
Also its against the Christian faith! The church, at least the Catholic church, is in support of most of this health care reform.
Why are all these people choosing the lies of big companies and fox news over the teachings of their church?
Picachu
How gullible are we as a nation? That's rhetorical, right? Remember George Bush was president TWICE, and Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Glenn Beck draw an audience in the millions. We are a nation of Xenophobic drones who just want to believe these liars for no other reason that I can determine except it makes the world easier for them to cope with by having boogie men to blame everything on. I am a democrat and I don't know any other fellow democrats who fit the straw man liberal leftist America hating commie pinkos boogie men that they constantly pretend "runs" their opposition. However, I do know plenty of what I can only consider mentally unbalanced people who identify themselves as right wing conservatives. These people, especially the evangelicals, have about the worst case of cognitive disonance I have ever encountered. The sad thing is they are being manipulated by folks whose only real interest is making sure the gravy train they are riding keeps on rolling. They constantly sit in opposition to their own self interest. They are a pretty disfunctional lot, and they are irrationally angry and pissed off because things are changing, and of course its all OUR fault. So again I must conclude your question is rhetorical.
ElLamer
I think most evangelicals are acting in good faith... I think its just a matter of the real news about the real world and from the real experts never reaching them...
connie47
When people believe this garbage, it is almost always intentional. It suits their politcal agenda to believe and spread lies. That it is also immoral is irrrelevant to them.
Granite
Exactly!
camfield
Yes, it's definitely intentional, and it's immoral. It's a bit sick that the same right-wingers who claim Christian values as a vote-getting ploy would still have us emulate Cain as our hero--kill your brother and then evade responsibility by asking, "Am I my brother's keeper." Gasbags like Coulter and Limbaugh and all of Rupert Murdoch's Fox News and Wall Street Journal types would have us just let them suffer and die--and out of their own smug, self-anointed, self-centered greed try to convince the rest of us that we are not responsible for our miserable brethren. It gags my soul.
namedujour
But if you knew you'd have to pay for the services yourself because you WEREN'T in Canada, and had no insurance, would you have run to the doctor, knowing that this would probably wipe you out financially? Probably not. You'd put it off and fret.
Or, you'd go for tests, find out it was cancer, and then be faced with knowing there was expensive life-saving treatment you couldn't pay for, and which is effectively out of your reach. Then what? You'd die. That's what's happening now.
Their whole argument is counter intuitive, and only makes perfect sense to people who don't reason effectively. Or, perhaps it's a subtle form of social genocide: Let's keep treatment out of the reach of this class of people under the guise of "saving" the rest of us. (shakes head too).
bbucol
Marionetta, I don't think many people DO believe the lies.
I say they spread them because its a game they play which many in the so called "news" media like Fox pick up on, and knowingly spread. They know the truth, they just don't have to tell it. Their coverage may not tell that something is a lie, especially if they like the lie. With a wink and a nod they will cover it because it is so outrageous... sort of like Man bites Dog = ObamaCare will kill your Grandmother.
tehixe
The funny thing is, if people with real power like Grassley would make real arguments instead of embracing the death panels and other garbage, they could get some of their own agenda through. As it is, the only people getting anything changed are the blue dogs. It's true that the Republican are the party of no. No ideas, no counter-proposals, no action, no truth, no integrity. In 2010, they're going to copy John McCain's horrible, ugly playbook, assuming that the same tactics that failed before will work if you believe hard enough, because nastiness and misinformation are the only tools they have left. I'm looking forward to a nice, long torpor for those bastards.
ElLamer
Im not too partisan but if they do go off into crazy land please everyone help out to get or keep the good guys in office.
In Oregon it looks like it will be pretty unspectacular. Wyden is an idiot when i comes to partial birth abortion but I don't see many alternatives and hes good on everything else and seems honest. Therefore I expect to be phonebanking for some other candidate from some other state... but please people don't drop the ball, if we can get/keep a real filibuster-proof majority in 2010 it will very positively effect our lives.
debbieqd
They've been told NOT to see. In addition to your excellent health care, you're better educated up there, too. Still, not all of us believe the gargbage and continue to vote in our own best interests.
jabo54
I would make the case that the current healthcare situation is what kills people, including women with breast cancer. I was diagnosed with bc 11 years ago. I had great health insurance through my job and received magnificent care. Completely in remission. Well, that job disappeared in October 2008 and guess what -- I am UNINSURABLE. I was turned down by all insurers because of "pre-existing condition," even though their own forms only asked for the last 10 years of medical history, which have been cancer free. So if I should -- god forbid -- end up with another cancer diagnosis, what are my options? Neither bankruptcy nor death are particularly appealing. This is why we must have reform!
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
Hannah83
You are exactly right, namedujour. My aunt had breast cancer and did not have health insurance. She knew something was wrong but put off going to the doctor because she couldn't pay for it. By the time she finally went, the cancer had spread all over her body and she died a few months later. I guess their argument is that this is better than nationalized health care? I can't begin to tell you how much this infuriates me.
ed1214
I have a friend right here in New York State who had to wait more than TWO months for a breast biopsy. A surgeon with an available appointment could not be found between NYC and Albany. BTW it was indeed breast cancer, and yes-she does have insurance.
Humor-In-Uniform
Ed, it will only get worse over time if this legislation is passed. Once you remove the financial reward of over a decade of hard work....you'll get fewed people willing to become doctors. Sounds great, feels good, but not sustainable.
roadhunter
Nothing in the proposed health care reform bill would diminish the pay received by physicians. Furthermore, countries with single-payer systems who pay their doctors far less money than doctors earn in the USA do not have shortages of physicians.
ed1214
Ummm, the point of my comment is that people already have to wait months for cancer treatment. I guess you just have a glass half empty outlook. I would like to believe that reform would lead to better outcomes for people. Your crystal ball has clouds, mine has sunshine.
connie47
The US is ranked #37 in healthcare, although we spend twice as much as any other country. I'm sorry, Humor, but this is propagandistic claptrap. The countries ranked 1 through 36 all have some form of univeral healthcare, with none of the dire problems you're pushing.
AlanD2
Humor-In-Uniform: If the government would pay for medical school (this is done in some other countries), perhaps doctors could focus on helping sick patients instead of making money to pay off student loans. Then you might have more doctors, particularly GPs who aren't well paid now.
And can you really be comfortable with a doctor whose sole goal in life is to get rich? Can you trust him (or her) not to push you into treatments which are expensive but not medically effective?
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
dcbooknurse
Nobody goes to med school because it will make them rich. Four year of college, four years of med school, one year intern, two or more as a resident, plus several more year for a specialty: You can make way more money faster going to Wall Street. People go into medicine because they want to help people and make a difference. This legislation help people get the treatment they need.
roger37
I have dealt with the medical education community for many years, and my own son is a medical professional. Occasionally, you get a med student who is doing it to make lots of money, but they are few and far between. The training process is just too rigorous, and that type of med student washes out.
Booknurse is right, docs are not in their profession to get rich, but they do want to make a decent living, and they deserve it. It's just that not all docs are equally competent, especially in patient communication, and that leads to charges of avarice.
Humor-In-Uniform
I appreciate you all making good comments and not just being hateful...
Anyhow, our country has been conditioned that doctors make a decent wage. In the short term at least in a universal system, I believe the carrot to get people to go into medicine won't be there and you'll have some really good and bright people seeking career fields that pay more.
Alan, I think you sort of made my point. Not enough GPs because that's not the money specialty. Make them all that way and you'll have less people that are overworked and paid less...they won't do it for long.
Easyrider, I couldn't agree with you more about the military comment...I'm active duty and have done my fair share of fighting. However, when a GED is the minimum requirement to be recruited, it's not hard to get people that will work for that pay. It isn't much, trust me. When you have a doctor that goes through 8 years of medical school and depending on their specialty, another 3-6 years of residency to be a part of a socialized medical system? Some may do it, but not all. Some people in this country want to see the fruits of their hard work. Why should a prison guard out of high school make as much as a doctor? Check the numbers...it will be true!
Thanks again for your relatively friendly responses...
retired-army-1SG
Where is your research to back up your argument? And, if it is correct, and doctors are primarily in medicine for financial gain then what is the incentive for me to support the current approach to health care? I assume your were military by your nickname, and if so, did you spend years and years being paid less than your civilian counterparts, endured months even years in assignments in some of the worst places on the planet, because of the money? Of course not. Survey after survey after survey shows that military people stay in the military because they believe they are making a difference. Maybe its just my choice, but I believe the doctors I know, and money isn't their primary consideration. And it may just be that a system that reduces or elliminates some of their overhead costs would actually net them more money in the end...
Humor-In-Uniform
I said a decent wage, not rich. I'm sure they all want to help humanity, but they also deserve a decent living doing it. I"m saying that if you bog them down all day long...day in and day out, they will get burned out and not even money will motivate them to stay.
al-nafs
Humor, your comment about whether doctors would want to go through the rigors of med school only to become a part of a socialized system ignores much of the reality of the proposed legislation. It does not outlaw private medical practises and place all doctors under the control of the government.
I must admit that it does irk me a bit when people use the word 'socialist' without knowing its meaning. Socialism is an economic strategy, not a form of government. Even on a small scale, the proposed legislation is not removing the means of production ( in this case, doctors, hospitals, ambulances, and other goods used to provide health care as a service ), as would be required by a socialist system.
It is creating a new way to pay for those things by providing a public health insurance option. They are not proposing building new hospital systems for everyone, like the VA hospital system.
This new option does not have to be the only option, though it may cost more to opt-out. I would encourage you to look at the numbers before assuming the cost of keeping your current health insurance leads to an unfavorable market for private insurers. That is the false assumption that ideologues like Limbaugh want you to make.
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
BullMoose
Humor-In-Uniform The Prison Industrial Complex is a boondoggle, with California the best unionized.
Those guys retire averaging 110,000 a year, full health benefits, double dip when the retire at 50, lot younger some of them, then work for the connections they made over time politically.
tumbleweed
The type of people who spread these kind of lies having been doing it for so long it's doubtful most of them have a clue what the truth really is anymore. Lies have become so ingrained in their political agenda. I am like the guy earlier who said these lies fit a lot of these people's political agendas. I knew the minute Obama mentioned health care reform it was going to be a barrage of lies to keep health care from any real reform. The Republican's hate anything that helps the American people on the whole. They have been trying to destroy Social Security since it started too. Which is why I don't understand why people go against their own self interests and vote for these slugs. It makes as much sense as listening to them.
spotted
The vast majority of Americans live under the aspirational delusion that they're "middle class". The reality is that they're born working class and most will die working class.
This disconnect is most evident with Medicare - a single-payer system for the over-65 crown that has provided a comprehensive healthcare safety net for the last 40 years. Middle-class people shouldn't need a program like that, but working-class people do. Now that every American has it, virtually all will fight tooth and nail to keep it.
Social Security forces ill-disciplined workers to provide for themselves and their families in the event of old age, death and disability.
(Bush's privatization, if passed, combined with the subsequent market crash, would have destroyed the entire system and left all participants destitute.)
In the same way, Medicare needs to be extended the entire population to control the runaway costs that the under- and uninsured add to everyone's healthcare.
I think we should have the English option of adding a tier of private insurance over the baseline for those who want better care. But the English accept the fact that they have a class-based society - we do not.
Obama needs to summon the courage to drag this county out of denial and into true reform.
sophia5
Anyway you slice it, whether it's the
current private insurance companies,
or the insurance companies that will
operate under government control,
there will be rationing.
roadhunter
Sophia, could you please elaborate? Is this something you've researched, or are you clairvoyant?
AlanD2
As often as I disagree with sophia5, she is absolutely right in this case.
We cannot possibly spend tens of millions of dollars on every single person in the U.S. to prolong his or her life for the last possible second.
So by definition we have rationing - whether by the lack of ability to pay, or by an insurance company's denial of a claim or lifetime cap, or by an explicit government-imposed rationing based on effectiveness of treatments and expectancy of successful outcomes.
connie47
Why are you trying to imitate Rita's style? She disagrees with you about, well, pretty much everything. Also, you don't do it very well. I don't mean that to be insulting, just the way it is.
roger37
"Rationing" is a demagogued word, and those people who are buffaloed by the right wing's propaganda haven't really thought it out.
Would you administer a $15,000 course of chemotherapy to a patient who is in a coma and will only live a few weeks? Of course not. That's rationing, at one extreme.
Would you administer the same course of chemo to a 70 year old patient who
has maybe 15 years to live? Of course you would. The problem is in the middle. Where do you draw the line?
Since most of those on the right think that somebody, mainly the government, is out to get them, they assume that this is just a way to facilitate the process. If somebody could figure out a way to allay those fears, we would change the minds of, say, two or three right wingers. Not bad, huh?
al-nafs
Sophia, Alan: On the other hand, if people are living healthier lives overall because they have access to healthcare, perhaps we can die of what it is that we are supposed to die of. Old age :)
Artist50
The insurance companies are already rationing. I think we need to do our own rationing. I had a dear friend that died of the same type of tumor that Ted Kennedy died from a year ago. Both were terminal from the beginning, both were treated at Duke, had good insurance and probably extended their lives by 6 months for quite a bit of money. That was their right. However, my friend's last 6 months were miserable and she was ready to go. At what cost is a little time worth? If I were diagnosed with that type of brain tumor I would not have treatment. The treatment is miserable and for me would not be worth it. I think we need to begin to look a death differently as a society.
roger37
I agree totally, but I'm afraid the American public is not sophisticated enough to consider all these points and make a rational decision. And the Right isn't about to let them take the time to consider the facts.
IMO, this has to be forced through Congress, then propagandized to very simple terms to get the public to go along with it.
nortonclybourn
There is already rationing. Rich get medical service, middle class get it if they're lucky, poor get it for a few months after they have a child. Over 65 get it from the government regardless of income. Not the greatest way to allocate resources.
smitisan
Or maybe more of them will be willing to go into primary care, where they're needed and where a lot of them would have gone but for the fact that it doesn't pay enough.
nortonclybourn
We need more physicians and we need the government to pay for their education so they won't have to squeeze patients to repay education loans. The current system is a legacy of the AMA guild restrictions on the number of medical schools. Obviously, this is obsolete, as we are importing doctors from 3rd world countries and even American citizens are training in Mexico or the Carribean. The AMA is on its last legs, but the legacy drags on.
bbucol
Since it is illegal to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater, and since there are legal remedies for lying about public figures, why doesn't it follow that there are repercussions for outright lies about other things? Why isn't anyone causing a little pain for people who spread lies, once they've been put on notice that what they are saying isn't true.
I understand the idea of fuzzy facts, but there are also black and white facts that fit most reasonable measures of truth. Why are so many in the news and legal communities letting the talk show hosts and other Health Industry shills and Politicians who obviously lie get away with it.
Too much timidity among Dems for my liking.
Dekrahs
People don't become doctors and nurses to get rich. That is reserved for evangelicals.
roger37
Thank You, Jaysus!
Dekrahs
And insurance CEO's.
AlanD2
When the former CEO of UnitedHealth Group, William McGuire, was fired after his company paid $1.3 billion in settlements for frauds, his "golden parachute" was $1.1 billion - the largest in the history of corporate America.
robjh1
The most ridiculous thing I have ever heard and for people to believe them. Death Panes?!!!!!!!!!!! Give me a break we have that now.
"and we are not saved..."
This user is no longer registered.
n--Y--ctbh723Picachu
They can't make factual rational arguments against it, so they have to resort to sophistry.
PhilMcRoin
I live in Houston.. of course I feel like I am surrounded by crazy people.. because I am surrounded by crazy people.
spotted
And they are less crazy than the secessionist folks up in Austin.
Lucky you!
PhilMcRoin
we should have never joined in the first place.. except that we needed someone to pay off our debt for us.. o well..
spotted
Considering that your state gave us "W", there are many who would vote to let Tejas revert back to independence. As Molly Ivins might have said, "Don't let the door hit you where the Good Lord split you!"
I miss her reasoned voice on issues like this.
PhilMcRoin
W is not from Texas.. damn carpetbaggers giving us a bad name!
lovestooread
The rearch-real research is out,I think the American people will vote it down.Or have their congress man vote it down,The American voter feels down trodden, and doesn't trust the Federal gov't.Yet this would create compotition, no doubtRepublicans oppose it because of fear, the insurance companies backing the Republicans, are afraid of real capitolism, and that they will be competed out. Republicans are all talk here is a chance to ignite a flame in the dwindling fire of capitolism, here in USA.Adam Smith capitolism compotiton.Government can't and won't get to involved in this with the competition comes also creativity.
Picachu
It's all about the money folks. These fantastic stories are being spread to defeat reform to a system that is making a small group of people extremely wealthy, while a huge group of people are denied access to reasonable healthcare. All being propagated through a group of very dysfunctional people with extreme cognitive disonance. The biggest beneficiaries of defeating healthcare reform are going to be those who are making the most money from it now. And thank you all you evangelical "Christians" for supporting this immoral social Darwinism - that's right - as much as you irrationally hate the idea of evolution YOU ARE A BUNCH OF SOCIAL DARWINISTS - and the fittest who survive in your world are those who can "SHOW ME THE MONEY". You people make me sick, and that's not something I want to be under our present system. Can't afford the copays.
jobert
Thank you for that. I agree completely. I am glad someone else has noticed that fundamentalist Christians are social darwinists. It would be funny if it were not completely infuriating.
AlanD2
Stephen J. Hemsley, CEO of UnitedHealth Group, has made over $750 million in salary, bonuses, and other benefits. I doubt he is in favor of reform.
Grimmace
Blame it on the money, blame it on the fantastic stories, blame it on the Christians.....but, there are basically 2 reasons why the Messiah is encountering problems on his way to socializing healthcare.
1. Most people like their health insurance.
2. We're broke and they don't believe that the Federal Government can do it better and for less than the current system as fllawed as it may be.
Those are my feelings, but even if you don't share those same feelings they are essentially the motivating forces behind all of Barry's problems in this debate.
Picachu
Grimm - I don't know if most people like their health insurance, but those who have it are sure glad they do cuz you are pretty screwed without it. I don't think the 50 million with no coverage can say they like theirs though. And if we are broke is because of Barry, or are you forgetting Georgy Boy and what he did for the last 8 years?
AlanD2
Actually, Grimmace, I blame it on people like you who lie endlessly to torpedo health care reform, without any concern for the Americans who are going to die as the result of your actions.
As for point 1: Survey: Medicare Beneficiaries Report Greater Satisfaction With Insurance, Better Access To Care Than Enrollees In Employer-Sponsored Plans
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/News/News-Releases/2002/Oct/Surv ey--Medicare-Beneficiaries-Report-Greater-Satisfaction-With-Insurance--Bett er-Access-To-Care-Tha.aspx
As for point 2: France has the best health care system in the world, but pays only half as much per person as we do. I would be more than happy to cut U.S. health care costs from $2.2 trillion annually to $1.1 trillion.
I can think of a few things we could do with an extra $1.1 trillion each year.
This user is no longer registered.
n--Y--SecretMuslimmcmchugh99
Look, the Republicans have called Obama everything but a white man. They have pulled out all the stops to block health care reform. Pretty soon they will be saying that Obama is going to sell your children to the evil aliens from the X-Files--whatever they have to do.
Right now, their only real play is to ally with the Dixiecrats to block all real change. They have done that many times in the past, and that Republican-Dixiecrat coalition is one reason the US is such a backward country compared to any other in the Western world.
Right now, there are not quite enough Dixiecrats and Republicans to block everything, but in the future there might be. Obama will never have a better chance to pass real reforms than right now, except perhaps for a year after his reelection in 2012.
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.