SiCKO Is Boffo

posted by David Corn on 06/21/2007 @ 2:15pm

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (224)

Subscribe Now

In 1971, Edgar Kaiser, the son of the founder of Kaiser Permanente, one of the first big HMOs, went to see John Ehrlichman, a top aide to President Nixon, to lobby the Nixon White House to pass legislation that would expand the market for health maintenance organizations (HMOs). Ehrlichman reported this conversation to Nixon on February 17, 1971. The discussion, which was taped, went like this:

Ehrlichman: I had Edgar Kaiser come in...talk to me about this and I went into it in some depth. All the incentives are toward less medical care, because the less care they give them, the more money they make.

President Nixon: Fine.

The next day, Nixon publicly announced he would be pushing legislation that would provide Americans "the finest health care in the world."

When tapes of the Nixon-Ehrlichman conversation and Nixon's subsequent public statement are played halfway through Michael Moore's new movie SiCKO, it is one of the film's more revealing moments. By this point in the film, Moore has already demonstrated that health insurance companies and HMOs are parasitic villains that routinely deny necessary medical care to make more bucks--even when their money-grubbing leads to the death of patients. Looking for the original sin that led to the present mess, Moore zeroes in on this Nixonian moment, which encapsulates the film's premise that the United States health care system is defined by a fundamental conflict: profit versus care, and--no surprise--profit beats care.

Moore makes this point magnificently in SiCKO, which is the best film in the Moore canon. I say this as one who had a mixed reaction to Fahrenheit 9/11. (See here.) This time around, Moore has crafted a tour de force that his enemies will have a tough time blasting (though they will still try). It's not as tendentious as his earlier works. It posits no conspiracy theories. The film skillfully blends straight comedy, black humor, tragedy, and advocacy. You laugh, you cry--literally. And you get mad.

The film stitches together a string of health care horror stories. Moore opens the movie by looking at two cases involving Americans who don't have health insurance. One fellow who sliced off the tips of two fingers is told at the hospital that he can attach the ring finger for $12,000 and the middle finger for $60,000. He can't afford both. Ever the romantic, Moore reports, this man opts to save his ring finger.

But SiCKO is not about the uninsured. It's about those who have insurance and who have been screwed. Moore began this project by advertising on the Web for tales of health care woe. Within a week, he had received 25,000 emails. That's plenty of raw material. One enterprising father of a child who was going deaf and whose insurance company would only pay for one ear implant wrote his insurance firm and asked if its CEOs would like to appear in Moore's film. The company--whaddayaknow--quickly authorized payment for the other implant.

From this flood of complaints, Moore drew compelling and heartbreaking stories. A woman is denied payment for a major procedure because she neglected to mention on her insurance application that she once had a yeast infection (which was, of course, unrelated to the procedure she needed). A mother loses her 18-month-old daughter because a hospital won't treat her without authorization from her insurance company and her insurer insists she takes the child (during an emergency situation) to an in-network hospital. A woman who was in a car crash is denied payment for an ambulance trip because she did not receive pre-approval for that cost. A man is denied a bone-marrow transplant that could save his life and dies.

Moore interviews health care industry insiders who confirm the worst suspicions. A former employee at a health insurance sales centers cries as she talks about how she was trained to handle prospective clients who might be health risks. "I'm such a bitch on the phone," she says. Doctors who worked for health care companies tell how they were encouraged to deny claims to save their companies money. Medical reviewers for one health insurance company who rendered the most denials received bonuses. Footage from a video surveillance camera shows a Los Angeles hospital dumping an indigent patient on Skid Row. "Who are we?" Moore asks. "Is this what we have become: a nation that dumps its own citizens?"

Moore's meta-message is, It doesn't have to be this way. He visits Canada, England, and France and compares their health care delivery systems to America's. He plays this for loads of yucks. In a British hospital, he goes looking for the place where a patient has to pay his or her bill. He cannot find such a check-out counter. Then--a-ha!--he finds a cashier. But--here comes the punch line--this is where the hospital hands out cash to patients who need a few pounds to cover the cost of their transportation home. Yes, in a British hospital you can leave with more money than you came in with.

What about those put-upon doctors who must work under the heavy yoke of Britain's National Health Service? He interviews a young doctor who drives a new Audi and lives in a posh million-dollar flat. The British system, the doc says, is fine for doctors--unless you want to live in a $3 million flat and own three or four cars. As for drugs, every prescription in England costs the equivalent of ten bucks--no matter what drug or how much of it. An American who blew out his shoulder trying to walk across the famous intersection at Abbey Road on his hands tells Moore that he obtained great hospital care for no money.

Ditto Canada. Ditto France. Doing his I-can't-believe-it act, Moore grills Americans and locals in each country who relate stories of receiving quality care for no payments. A Canadian doctor, with a straight face, says that he has "never told anyone we couldn't put a finger back on" because of a patient's inability to pay. In the land of surrender-monkeys, Moore discovers that government-paid doctors--Sacre bleu!--make house calls, and new parents are visited by federally-paid daycare providers. And get this: a fellow who completes chemo in France gets three months of paid leave to recuperate (on a beach in the south of France, no less). No wonder, the United States ranks 37th in the world when it comes to the health of its citizens, just edging out Slovenia.

Moore whacks the U.S. political system for catering to the needs of the insurance industry not the citizenry, pointing out that the health care lobby pumps millions of dollars into the campaigns of lawmakers. He notes that Senator Hillary Clinton, once the scourge of the health care industry, has become a top recipient of contributions from health care firms. (Movie mogul Harvey Weinstein, executive producer of the film and a friend of Hillary Clinton, pressed Moore to cut that part of the film. Moore turned him down. In a recent interview, Weinstein conceded he had asked Moore to delete this portion.)

In the film's climax, Moore gets on a boat in Miami with three 9/11 rescue workers who have been unable to obtain the necessary treatment for ailments apparently caused by their exposure to debris at Ground Zero. His mission: bring them and other health care industry victims to the Guatanamo detention facility in Cuba, where (according to the Bush administration and Republican congressional leaders) the detainees typically receive fine medical treatment. Gitmo, Moore cracks, is "the only place on American soil with free universal health care."

Moore's small flotilla approaches the camp. He takes out a bullhorn and shouts, I have three 9/11 rescue workers who need medical attention. He adds, They just want the kind of treatment al Qaeda is getting. No one in the guard tower responds. A siren goes off. Maybe we better leave, he says. Moore takes the rescue workers and the others to the Havana Hospital where they receive--as do all Cubans there--free quality treatment.

Sure, it's a stunt--but a telling one. One of the rescue workers is living on a monthly disability payment of $1000. Her inhaler costs $120, and she needs at least two a month. She breaks down and cries when she learns she can purchase the same drug in Cuba for five cents. Were she a suspected terrorist in Gitmo, she would get the device for free.

Moore's right. The health care system in the United States is a bad deal for many Americans. (Don't get me started about Oxford, which routinely denies almost every claim I submit for my family.) He glosses over some of the problems overseas (the French social welfare system is under much pressure), but he debunks the hyperbolic scare-'em criticisms hurled at the Canadian and British systems by free-marketeers who defend the U.S. system. As for the charge that a universal health care system would be "socialized medicine," Moore rightfully counters that in the United States there's socialism when it comes to the public well-being; there are public schools, public fire departments, and public libraries. What about public health?

In the film, Canadians, Brits and French laugh at Americans for their cockamamie health care system. Explaining their own systems, they all say that it's a matter of communal security: we take care of each other. In other words, leave no citizen behind. Moore does not explicitly call for a particular set of reforms. But he clearly wants a taxpayer-funded system that cuts out the insurance companies and provides universal care to all.

Health care policy can be mind-numbingly complicated. Try to sort out the differences between Senator Barack Obama's health care plan and Senator John Edwards' proposal. And remember the wire chart the GOP cooked up for Hillary Clinton's proposed reform? But Moore, to his credit, cuts through the surface-level details and gets to the essentials. Why not health care for all? Why allow corporate profit-mongers to decide whether an 18-month-old girl lives or dies? Why is the population of the United States, as wealthy as this nation is, not as healthy as the population of Britain, France, Canada, and 33 other countries? Why settle for a sick system?

Advocates of universal health care (note I say care, not coverage) are hoping SiCKO leads to political change. The California Nurses Association, which supports a single-payer system, is organizing across the country in conjunction with the movie's appearance. It's hard to see a film moving a nation--and, in particular, the politicians who pocket all those health care industry dollars. But Moore has produced a work that maximizes his talents as social critic, humorist, filmmaker, journalist, and advocate. SiCKO is brilliantly funny and sad. It's a dead-on diagnosis. Don't get sick before seeing this film.

*****

JUST OUT IN PAPERBACK: HUBRIS: THE INSIDE STORY OF SPIN, SCANDAL, AND THE SELLING OF THE IRAQ WAR by Michael Isikoff and David Corn. The paperback edition of this New York Times bestseller contains a new afterword on George W. Bush's so-called surge in Iraq and the Scooter Libby trial. The Washington Post said of Hubris: "Indispensable....This [book] pulls together with unusually shocking clarity the multiple failures of process and statecraft." The New York Times called it, "The most comprehensive account of the White House's political machinations...fascinating reading." Tom Brokaw praised it as "a bold and provocative book." Hendrik Hertzberg, senior editor of The New Yorker notes, "The selling of Bush's Iraq debacle is one of the most important--and appalling--stories of the last half-century, and Michael Isikoff and David Corn have reported the hell out of it." For highlights from Hubris, click here.

Comments (224)

Besides Nixon.....why doesn't Mr Moore quote these chaps?

Senator Hubert Humphrey's endorsing statement... in which he noted that the bill ``provides a strong incentive for a long-overdue emphasis upon preventive services to avoid the need for costly, intensive care.''

On March 3, 1978-- Senator Edward Kennedy bragged, "As the author of the first HMO bill ever to pass the Senate, I find this spreading support for HMOs truly gratifying. Just a few years ago, proponents of health maintenance organizations faced bitter opposition from organized medicine." He added, "HMOs have proven themselves again and again to be effective and efficient mechanisms for delivering health care of the highest quality. HMOs cut hospital utilization by an average of 20 to 25 percent compared to the fee-for-service sector."

(on a local note....As for Hillary, given the love affair FRANKGRITS has for both Mikey and Her Nibs....it'll be interesting to see how he defends Hillary, but doesn't call Moore a liar?!?!?!...heheh)

Posted by Mask at 06/21/2007 @ 2:31pm
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 06/21/2007 @ 3:12pm

Insipid tripe that serves no useful purpose.

Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 06/21/2007 @ 3:15pm

Are you saying then that poor health care is an economic positive? Boy, you really ARE a NeoCon, huh?

Posted by leftofcenter at 06/21/2007 @ 3:22pm
"Maybe America ranks so low in healthcare because we generally have a pretty good understanding of economics."

This sums up America's healthcare problem.

Posted by Hman23 at 06/21/2007 @ 3:28pm
HMAN32.....guess instead of the "bottle in front of me" he went for the "frontal lobotomy"

Posted by leftofcenter at 06/21/2007 @ 3:37pm
Yeah, re-read that...

"And get this: a fellow who completes chemo in France gets three months of paid leave to recuperate (on a beach in the south of France, no less)."

Seriously, if some conservative/libertarian said...."Just you wait, when the libs get 'universal health care', they'll be sending recuperating patients on 3 weeks of paid leave to Disney World or Vegas"....

the libs would SCREAM "That's a straw man! It will never happen! ALL we're talking about here is BASIC coverage, a MINIMAL amount of Federally-sponsored health care...not some phoney 'free vacation' 'nightmare scenario' out of the feverish minds of you cons!"

Yet...they do it in France, and Mr Corn PRAISES it as the way to go.

So...I'll say it "WHEN (note, I'm not saying "if") we get 'free health care from the Government, just you wait...it'll degenerate into free vacations to Disney World or Vegas for the recuperating patients on OUR tab!"

Now....let the cat-calls of "straw man" begin...

Posted by Mask at 06/21/2007 @ 3:39pm
If MM is ragging so much about how awful the American healthcare system is, then why doesn't he explain why so many Europeans and Canadians still come to this country to use our services? Both he and those he's interviewed tout their systems as ideal, but yet they come here...go figure.

Gotta get back to work.

Posted by ACook at 06/21/2007 @ 4:07pm
I got three months of paid leave to recuperate from my operation; if I owned a place on the Riviera, I guess I could have convalesced there.

Posted by nathanhale at 06/21/2007 @ 4:37pm
Posted by ACOOK 06/21/2007 @ 4:07pm

I'm sure that movie is forthcoming from some anti-Moore wingnuters that had their F 9/11 movie "rebuttals".

ACOOK, tell us about these people that come from all over the world.

Posted by BlueTexan at 06/21/2007 @ 4:37pm
Maybe America ranks so low in healthcare because we generally have a pretty good understanding of economics.

Posted by MARYBRETBRAD

... So we know exactly how to have a health-care system that makes a few rich at the direct expense of almost everyone else.

Posted by RageKage at 06/21/2007 @ 4:45pm
Posted by PLAIN BRUCE Why doesn't Bruce learn how to conjugate the verb "do"?

Posted by nathanhale at 06/21/2007 @ 4:49pm
Maybe Bruce should see the movie first.

Posted by Hman23 at 06/21/2007 @ 4:56pm
Gee, this really hit a NEOCON nerve! The MaskTroll is about to explode! What do these people have against health care? I guess they would rather spend their money to kill children and embryos in Iraq that cure them here. It truly sickens me to hear their complaints about how much MONEY it would cost. Mask, someday you'll get a letter from your insurance company saying that your cancer is not covered becaue you smoked all those years. Do a little research then, Mask, you'll find that Phillip Morris actually owns that insurance company. HA! Jokes on you!

Posted by Noodle at 06/21/2007 @ 4:58pm
Posted by PLAIN BRUCE 06/21/2007 @ 4:45pm

Answer....cuz it doesn't fit the belief system. And it might raise some doubts among the faithful or those to be converted.

That said, it's not important....they're going to win. The system is so broken now that a simplistic notion like "Let's put everybody into Medicare" will sound so perfect and so panaceaic, that it'll pass (probably by 2010, 2011).

Then after a few months, maybe a year or two of celebrations....tales of the wonders...."We've finally emerged from our medievalism"....

the horror stories will start coming out. And the Left's answer will be "Oh, that's just an isolated incident"...."Oh, sure there are a few 'gaps' in the system"...."Well, so? You want to go back to the bad ol' days where people died?!!??!" (until somebody dies) and they say "...the bad ol' days where a LOT of people died?!?!?!"

Start your investment fund now for all the "private spas", where the GOOD doctors will go....unless you want to end up in one of the "Federal Hospitals" where the staff is made up of ...residents are paying off their Federal loans with work...."Frank Burns" types...and a group of nurses, PAs, and EMTs ready to embrace a Soviet gulag than stay where they are.

Or tax rates so oppressive the economy of the late 70s will look like the Eisenhower years!

Or both.

Posted by Mask at 06/21/2007 @ 5:02pm
Posted by NOODLE 06/21/2007 @ 4:58pm |

Hey, I already said YOU'LL WIN....how much of a "poor winner" do you want to be?

Posted by Mask at 06/21/2007 @ 5:03pm
Mask - unless we all have a bit more info on this French provision, what you are arguing against is a straw man.

Posted by Hman23 at 06/21/2007 @ 5:05pm
MBB:

An example of some millionaire shieks coming for top-of-the-line cancer treatment hardly makes the point. As with many things in the U.S., at the top, you will find the best in the world. The charge isn't that U.S. doctors or technology are behind the rest of the world.

Posted by Hman23 at 06/21/2007 @ 5:13pm
Posted by PLAIN BRUCE 06/21/2007 @ 4:56pm

Good to see you put some real thought into your points rather than cut & pasting.

Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 06/21/2007 @ 5:04pm

Yea, those ME countries are known for their health care. Maybe we should copy them and their great democracies.

What about heads of state from Canada, Britan, Germany, etc. Any of them coming here for services?

Look, I know people come from all over the world for specialized care. I live in a certain Texas city with one of the most advanced medical centers on the planet. But the point of Moore's movie is getting plain old coverage for all Americans. This movie (and issue) isn't about patients needing surgery to seperate conjoined twins or some rare brain cancer. It's about getting everyone the right amount of preventative care so as to prevent the need for major surgery or aggresive treatment. That's when the savings start adding up. Prevent, rather than cure.

Posted by BlueTexan at 06/21/2007 @ 5:14pm
Posted by PLAIN BRUCE 06/21/2007 @ 5:34pm

Its a little different, but my dentist doesn't take any insurance. (My work dental plan is bascially a reimbursement plan) She doesn't seem to be living the high life, but she seems like she's not hurting. She's happy to not have to take orders from insurance companies on how best to provide care for her patients. See life goes on without "managed care"!

Posted by BlueTexan at 06/21/2007 @ 5:39pm
Posted by PLAIN BRUCE 06/21/2007 @ 5:34pm

Its a little different, but my dentist doesn't take any insurance. (My work dental plan is bascially a reimbursement plan) She doesn't seem to be living the high life, but she seems like she's not hurting. She's happy to not have to take orders from insurance companies on how best to provide care for her patients. See life goes on without "managed care"!

Posted by BlueTexan at 06/21/2007 @ 5:40pm
seems there's a steady stream of ME shieks visiting the Mayo Clinic for cancer treatment. I'm sure the head of Egypt was there a few years back.

Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 06/21/2007 @ 5:04pm

They are the only ones who can AFFORD the treatment.

Posted by Dr Decibels at 06/21/2007 @ 5:47pm
Allotherapeutics is all about anatomical is-ness, not prophelactic pathology preventiveness. It's crisis/cure centered, intrusively interventionist, and routinely offers dependency inducing substitutes for normal/healthy bodily functions. True, it works great for acute injuries and life-saving restorations.

But homeopathic and numerous other health promoting paradigms which are FAR less profitable but MUCH MOORE effective at reducing the frequency and severity of chronic symtomotologies aren't efficient money-making methods and, of course, there's the rub.

Moore's the better that we should be exposed to how "sick" our current system is when it comes to ignoring the potential benefits of fostering/facilitating Nature's Healthful examples while continuing to excise tumors springing from 24/7 promoted decadence and self-abuse.

Posted by lewwelge at 06/21/2007 @ 6:15pm
Granted, I expect to be biased, but to be this disingenuous is embarassing.

Posted by PLAIN BRUCE 06/21/2007 @ 4:49pm | ignore this person

this from the phony doctor, really a lying shit.

Posted by johannesrolf at 06/21/2007 @ 6:32pm
the people without insurance wait a lot longer for treatment. those who can't afford to see a doctor sometimes die while they are waiting. don't believe Bruce who is a proven liar.

Posted by johannesrolf at 06/21/2007 @ 6:33pm
the people without insurance wait a lot longer for treatment. those who can't afford to see a doctor sometimes die while they are waiting. don't believe Bruce who is a proven liar.

Posted by JOHANNESROLF 06/21/2007 @ 6:33pm

Surely you can prove that(?) - Hospitals in the US, by law, cannot refuse to see a patient without insurance.

Posted by Sliver at 06/21/2007 @ 7:31pm
ACOOK, tell us about these people that come from all over the world.

Posted by BLUETEXAN 06/21/2007 @ 4:37pm |

I am also from Minnesotas, where my family practiced as well as in Wisconsin...and the clincs had a stead stream of Canadians needing critical care, and couldn't wait...for head colds, kids shots, stiches and broken bones the post office model works fine...if you are really in need of a critical treatment, socialised medicine will get you a quicker faster casket, but not care.

Anyone form certain states can attest to deposit slips containing Canadian bills and checks...for conversion....

unfortunately, most of you will get want you want...I just hope they do not out law private practice so others of us can get the care we need.

Posted by john maasch at 06/21/2007 @ 7:33pm
Conservative Republicans: WRONG on health care

Posted by conshame at 06/21/2007 @ 7:53pm
Sliver you're wrong. Hospitals by law cannot refuse to save somebody's life if they don't have insurance.

John Maassch you're wrong. "You just hope..." that if you or someone you care about needs medical attention, that a Conservative Authoritarian such as yourself has no standing to deny you the medical care you need.

Posted by conshame at 06/21/2007 @ 7:56pm
Mask - unless we all have a bit more info on this French provision, what you are arguing against is a straw man.

Posted by HMAN23 06/21/2007 @ 5:05pm

Mr Corn wrote the article, not me, HMAN. And ALL he told us was that chemo patients in France get 3 weeks paid leave at a beach in the south of France....and how great it was.

Based on THAT information....what do you think?

And why is my "straw man" not going to happen in spades a few years after WE get such wonderful government health care, given the way NO entitlement has ever been decreased?

Posted by Mask at 06/21/2007 @ 7:58pm
I am eager to see this film and remain a fan of yours, Mr. Corn. I am a bit confused, however. You have rarely refrained from digging deeply into policy matters, so I'm wondering why you gloss over the differences between Senator Edwards plan and the one proposed by Barack Obama. Paul Krugman had no such difficulty. He reviewed each plan in his column published by the New York times. The titles of the two reviews is revealing. The title of the review of Edward's plan was "Edwards Gets It Right," while his review of Obama's plan was "Obama is in Second Place." How is it he can readily tell the difference and you can't?

Posted by nmahkno at 06/21/2007 @ 8:00pm
The Conservative position on health care is, if someone needs medical attention don't give it to them. Just let them suffer, just let them die. That really and truly is the Conservative stance on health care, they are saying it all the time.

Posted by conshame at 06/21/2007 @ 8:00pm
Broken Arm? Sorry. If we fix your arm for free, wealthy people won't be able to pay for premium care. Conservatives hate America because we are free. Conservatives had their chance, they did not lead, we will.

Posted by conshame at 06/21/2007 @ 8:02pm
One of the few FUN moments after UHC (universal health care)....

will be the stories of people like David Corn (or better Katrina vanden Heuvel) well into their seniority, going NOT to the closest "Federal public hospital" but going to any of a number of "private spas", cutting ahead the 7 week waiting period for common operations, getting the NON-Federalized advanced pharmaceuticals out of China (the ones that work), or being treated by some doc making $250K who's a specialist in their specific malady.... and not some 30 year old resident, pissed off at making the Federal mandated MAXIMUM wage who's treating cancer patients until he can get a slot at one of the Hollywood cosmetic surgery "spas".

But of course there will be apologia. "She needed specialized treatment before her speech at the Dem Convention" or "She has the right to use her wealth anyway she wants, are conservatives/libertarians now against that? It doesn't negate our wonderful universal health care system" or "She's known Dr. **** for years, so of course she went to his clinic in the Rockies and not Manhatten Federal"

But the humor of such small hypocrisies will be little consolation.

Posted by Mask at 06/21/2007 @ 8:10pm
Exposing the lies about "Universal/Free Health Care"

First of all, there is no right to health care. None! Sicko is an appropriate name for Michael Moore but not much else when it comes to this movie.

http://www.haciendapub.com/article22.html

On the supposed marvels of Universal/Free Healthcare in Canada and Europe

Or consider this example: One night Michael Madden, a young American living in Sweden, suffered bouts of extreme abdominal pain. When the bouts persisted and he noticed blood in his urine, he became quite concerned and went to an emergency room at the local hospital early the next morning. The staff gave him a wooden tab marked with the number 67, indicating his place in the waiting line. He took a seat in a big waiting room filled with patients in need of immediate care, some with rags over bloody wounds. Even though Madden was having extreme pain, "a lot were worse off than I was," he later reflected. After he had waited about half an hour, a nurse called out for "No. 3." He still had 64 ahead of him. He wanted the hospital to take care of the worst cases first. At 6:00 in the evening, another staff person came out and told those still waiting to "come in tomorrow, you'll keep your number in line." That night, after a final bout of excruciating pain, the problem went away. He felt great in the morning and didn't bother to go back to the hospital. After the fact, a medical friend concluded that he had passed a kidney stone.

In 2000 The New York Times reported problems all across Canada. According to the story:

"Further west, in Winnipeg, 'hallway medicine' has become so routine that hallway stretcher locations have permanent numbers. Patients recuperate more slowly in the drafty, noisy hallways, doctors report."

At Vancouver General Hospital, "Maureen Whyte, a hospital vice president, estimates that 20 percent of heart attack patients who should have treatment within 15 minutes now wait an hour or more."

Finally, "Last summer, as waiting lists for chemotherapy treatments for breast and prostate cancer stretched to four months, Montreal doctors started to send patients 45 minutes down the highway to Champlain Valley Physicians' Hospital in Plattsburgh, New York."

As The New York Times points out, "Canada has moved informally to a two-tier, public-private system. Although private practice is limited to dentists and veterinarians, 90 percent of Canadians live within 100 miles of the United States, and many people are crossing the border for private care."

But it gets worse. Canadians often wait weeks and even months to see a specialist. According to the Vancouver-based Fraser Institute's annual survey of waiting times in Canada:

The average total waiting time between referral from a general practitioner and treatment rose from 13.3 weeks in 1998 to 14 weeks in 1999.

Waiting times between specialist consultation and treatment (which excludes the time between seeing a general practitioner and getting in to see a specialist) increased from 7.3 weeks in 1998 to 8.4 weeks in 1999.

Waiting times for diagnostic tests also experienced some increases. For example, the median wait for a CT scan across Canada was five weeks in 1999, a 6.4 percent increase over 1998.

The Horrors of Socialized Medicine [tinyurl.com]

5 Myths of Socialized Medicine

http://www.cato.org/pubs/catosletter/catosletterv3n1.pdf

Posted by antiliberal at 06/21/2007 @ 8:57pm
parasitical - perfect description of the health insurance industry in this country. evil scoundrels profiting from other's misery and buying politicians to keep the racket going.

most people understand this...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/21/2007 @ 8:59pm
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 06/21/2007 @ 8:59pm

IBBLE...how many people are employed in "the health insurance industry in this country"?

Just so we'll know how many you'll be putting out of work?

Posted by Mask at 06/21/2007 @ 9:09pm
MASK

in regard to kvh, how about..."she can afford it"?

if you had no insurance, little bling, and needed medical help, would you prefer...

a) nothing

b) a less than perfect yet still functional system that helps you

if you have insurance that dicks around and forces you to fight for substandard care, may deny life saving procedures, etc...

how much worse could the most (ridiculously hyberbolically over exagerated) nightmarish public health alternative be?

ah...but gubbament bad! gubbament bad!!! (unlike evil parasites like health insurance companies, i guess...)

Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/21/2007 @ 9:10pm
Posted by MASK 06/21/2007 @ 9:09pm

good point. the only reservation i have about destroying the rot.

but the rot (as in education, public and private) is bad. have a good friend who processed claims who could not take it anymore.

i just think health insurance is a waste of resources and parasitical.

no pain, no gain...cut the cancer out...perhaps its time to crap out this 50 foot long tapeworm after all.

Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/21/2007 @ 9:16pm
Posted by MASK 06/21/2007 @ 9:09pm

good point. the only reservation i have about destroying the rot.

but the rot (as in education, public and private) is bad. have a good friend who processed claims who could not take it anymore.

i just think health insurance is a waste of resources and parasitical.

no pain, no gain...cut the cancer out...perhaps its time to crap out this 50 foot long tapeworm after all.

Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/21/2007 @ 9:18pm
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 06/21/2007 @ 9:10pm

IBBLE, that's the classic argument. The ONLY choices we have are A. nothing...B. "less than perfect" system. Yet apparently the "less than perfect" system YOU want is much better than the "less than perfect" system we have now.

And interesting that you trust the "gubbament" when it comes to health care....but reasonaly so, don't when it comes to promising not to listen in on your phone conversations or shipping you off to Gitmo......you DO realize it's the SAME "gubbament" and that it's not impossible for another "You Know Who/ubya" to get elected some day! ================================== no pain, no gain...Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 06/21/2007 @ 9:18pm

Great comfort for those thousands (maybe a million) folks who'll be put out of work. You don't think the CEO and Board members of Cigna and Wellpoint are going to suffer, do you? They'll bail out with their golden parachutes before UHC is enacted with millions. Joe Smith, local Blue Cross rep, will be out on the streets....but hey....he'll have "free" health care!

Posted by Mask at 06/21/2007 @ 9:47pm
BTW, before somebody else takes up the fight with "Hey, just because we'll offer BASIC coverage from the Government, doesn't mean we'll put premium private health care out of business!"

Uh, yeah...it does. You think "basic" coverage will STAY "basic" coverage? Nooooooooo....every year, Ted Kennedy and Barbara Boxer and ANYbody running for re-election will come back adding more and more and more and more types of coverage and services...until it becomes foolish to spend money on private insurance....atleast for the majority of folks.

The evil "top 1%'ers" will buy it....as an investment in getting to go to those "private spas".....but not enough to keep all the private insurance guys in business.

Most will fold, and (as I told IBBLE) the Bosses will bail out with millions in retirement....while the local and state reps will be laid off. Some may find some slots in AUTO insurance (until talk of "universal auto insurance" starts up a year after UHC)...or other white-collar jobs. But there will be a spike in middle class unemployment....to which folks like IBBLE will offer his gracious and compassionate "no pain, no gain".

Posted by Mask at 06/21/2007 @ 9:53pm
well, first of all i don't see the insurance industry in this country getting put down regardless.

but if millions are employed in a parasitic private industry...how is this any better than a less than perfect public health care apparatus?

i mean, all i seem to hear about (especially from those standing to profit thereby or randian ideologues) is how much better the private sector always is than public sector.

in this case it appears that it certainly is - for the health insurance ceo's. but in terms of wastage and cost, it appears that privatization has resulted in an embarrasingly inept, corrupt, inefficient health care system.

but but but...private good! gubbament bad!

hey, how about this? sometimes private good, other times gubbament good...depends on what we're talking about.

Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/21/2007 @ 10:02pm
and mask, for years now right wingers have been dismantling tax codes, government programs, and repealing legislation that has caused LOTS of pain for LOTS of non ceo's.

you know, lots of folks lost good paying jobs when the limeys cracked down on the slave trade in the early 1800's...slavers. i'm sure some were decent folks just going with the flow and paying the bills, but in the long run...so?

no pain no gain...crap out the 50 foot tapeworm.

Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/21/2007 @ 10:13pm
and mask, for years now right wingers have been dismantling tax codes, government programs, and repealing legislation that has caused LOTS of pain for LOTS of non ceo's.

you know, lots of folks lost good paying jobs when the limeys cracked down on the slave trade in the early 1800's...slavers. i'm sure some were decent folks just going with the flow and paying the bills, but in the long run...so?

no pain no gain...crap out the 50 foot tapeworm.

Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/21/2007 @ 10:14pm
"John Maassch you're wrong."

No, I am not, I am speaking from experience and having seen and talked to the patients in the office..

you CONSHAME, are just an idiot..and the audaciousnesss you post with the = is so somplisitic a command that someone is wrong without any experience is hilarious, as your post are simple, that you must be simpleminded from and obviously invovled in academia and not practical hands on experience in life...thats why you are so comfortibly far left and are in the kook section with honors for simple posts involving matrix math, as is CONSHAME =SIMPLTON..with a hat and a spinning propellar on top...a red one....whirling away nicely with or with out a breeze.

Posted by john maasch at 06/21/2007 @ 10:24pm
IBBLE, again, I'm not "arguing against it"...that would be pointless in my view.

It's going to happen. Everything you want. Total, universal health care coverage "single payer", i.e. Federal tax, managed by the Fed, regulated by the Fed, controlled by the Fed (and don't buy the "no, no, the Fed will just supply a check, they won't 'control' your health care!"....yeah, right. They'll just pay out BILLIONS and not expect (nay, NEED) to keep a VERY watchful eye.

No, you misunderstand. All I'm doing is saying what WILL also happen. It will not remain "Medicare for all"...efficient, low bureaucracy, low cost. It can't.

Americans will demand more and more and more from the system, especially as private insurance fades and employer insurance bails out VERY quickly.

Fraud will be rampant. Doctors will bail on the public system for private "spas" (to reduce paperwork and hassles at the least). To control costs, doctors' fees MUST be regulated and when you see some guy pulling down 200-250K at a "spa", and you're forced to make $100K at the packed-to-the-brim with everybody who has a sniffle or a scrap "Federal Hospital"....you'll be looking for your ticket out ASAP.

And Michael Moore, David Corn, Katrina vanden Heuvel, Hillary Clinton, and all the advocates (with cash) sure as hell won't be going to the public hospitals.

We WILL have that "two tier" system that's complained about NOW....but in spades. One, for the lower 90%ers, who have to go to the local Federal facility....and one for the top 10%ers who'll get the places that make the Mayo Clinic look like a Detroit ER at 3am.

But, hey...."everybody will be covered" and that's the important thing, isn't it?

Posted by Mask at 06/21/2007 @ 10:39pm
Hey Mask Why is it so important for HMO CEO's to earn hundreds of millions of dollars a year while a large portion of Americans go without health care? Do you think you are immune from greedy health care companies? You too can be denied coverage. I bet you were all broken up when the end of World War 2 put all those concentration camp guards out of a job.

Posted by chasbough at 06/21/2007 @ 10:43pm
Mask, perhaps you should take a deep breath wand wait to see what (if anything) is proposed in terms of reforming health care. With all your talk about Gulag-style clinics, massive unemployment, disgruntled federal doctors, you are sounding a little hysterical.

Obviously, the system we have now is, at worst, broken, at best, littered with problems. We obviously see how you do NOT want the system reformed. I'd be curious to know what reforms (if any) wouldn't scare the beejeebus out of you.

Posted by Hman23 at 06/21/2007 @ 10:46pm
MASK

refer to HMAN's comment. could not say it better. sure, eventually peeps will push too far, but thats what we have republicans for, is it not? in the way its supposed to work...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/21/2007 @ 10:58pm
Hey Mask, I work in an angiocardiology unit in a hospital in Santa Rosa, CA. Our hospital is one of three that serves a town of 157,000 and a county of more than 300,000. We take care of the people in the outlying areas that are rural where they can't get the services that we offer. Sutter Hospital, one of our competitors, will be closing in a year because they are not as profitable as they would like to be. Guess whose emergency rooms are going to get more crowded. Guess which hospital is going to have longer waiting times for its patients.

Posted by chasbough at 06/21/2007 @ 10:59pm
and please, can we get a way from the "liberals who champion causes of the poor and don't use the services that result therefrom are hypocrites" thing?

i mean, if i give money to CARE, then don't eat a "CARE" style diet, am i some sort of two bit "limo liberal" hypocrite?

Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/21/2007 @ 11:06pm
CHAS

good point. i just think there are some endeavors that CANNOT be profitable and effective.

the profit actually decreases the quality of the service and increases wastage. perhaps some form of co-op is a good option for healthcare, but in this case i trust the gubbament more than private industry, if that is the choice...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/21/2007 @ 11:11pm
About ten years ago I read about the CEO of an HMO who had made 800 million dollars in one year. He was the highest paid person in the health care system. The second highest paid person was the CEO of another HMO who had been paid 600 million. That's two guys who sucked 1.4 billion dollars out of the health care system in one year. How many people suffered so those two pigs could fatten their portfolios?

Posted by chasbough at 06/21/2007 @ 11:23pm
Posted by CHASBOUGH 06/21/2007 @ 11:23pm

so he made hundreds of times what his lowest paid schmuks made. he must have worked hundreds of times harder, have recieved hundreds of times more ejumugoshdarncayshun than his lowest paid employee. without that 800 million dollar salary, you just could never convince qualified folks to take such positions and then how would we get such top notch health care? don't you know your bullshit randian uber-capitalist dogma boy!!!!!????

lol

bless you and all other health care WORKERS as opposed to ceo leaches...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/21/2007 @ 11:37pm
It's immoral not to give care to people who can't afford it.

Posted by FRANKGRITS 06/21/2007 @ 11:41pm |

IF we can afford it. in that every other developed country (and a few less than developed ones as well) can...

but of course $800 million ceo salaries make the private healthcare MORE effective and efficient, FRANK...

(at reaming the country that is)

Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/22/2007 @ 12:20am
I bet you were all broken up when the end of World War 2 put all those concentration camp guards out of a job.

Posted by CHASBOUGH 06/21/2007 @ 10:43pm | ignore this person

They should have unionised.

Posted by john maasch at 06/22/2007 @ 12:21am
strangely misplaced double postings, i see...wierd.

Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/22/2007 @ 12:22am
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 06/22/2007 @ 12:21am

har har har! good one, maasch!

Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/22/2007 @ 12:23am
"Mask, perhaps you should take a deep breath wand wait to see what (if anything) is proposed in terms of reforming health care. With all your talk about Gulag-style clinics, massive unemployment, disgruntled federal doctors, you are sounding a little hysterical. "

Actualy, my guess MASK is using the model of other govt programs designed to deliver a service to all the people...and using past experience as a marker, he is right on target..including but not limitied to cost underestimates, more and more services demanded as a right, more and more people "qualify for free", higher and higher premiums, less and less coverage limits..waiting for serious operations, union strikes for more money, just as your new heart arrives....and unless the dems in Congress outlaw private practice, the most qualified doctors will bail out faster than bomber crew over old Europe in the 40s...

And last but not least...one will never find the people who brought you your new rights to health care standing in line next to you...they will never go near it, nor let their children be examined by the newer, fresh from affirmative action med students...who have been recruited out of Jr colleges, Barios and Ghettos..in an attempt to have a doctor of your peers treat you...just to be fair..on the other hand...it might nip that pesky population explosion from the new immigrant, er, undocumented Americans,as word spreads that the care is not so hot..

Posted by john maasch at 06/22/2007 @ 12:31am
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 06/22/2007 @ 12:31am |

the "gubbament always bad" "private always good" argument is simply not always supported by facts, john. it IS often supported by ideology, though.

of course there will be some waste in goverment run programs. but it looks to me like there is a hell of a lot of waste in the private system too. like $800 million ceo salaries. and god only knows how much spent donating to political campaigns and peddling influence to for sale politicians by the private health care industry.

i just think that some functions, especially vital functions like health care, law enforcement, the military, function better as public entities.

uber business types whine and bitch about gubbament regulation. thats what they do, and sometimes correctly. but GOOD, well thought out regulations and gubbament involvement are vital to the health of capitalism, in that without such, even moral, ethical business folk are forced by their less moral/ethical brethren to sink to their level or cease to exist.

and the pipe dream of self regulation, when faced with the reality that some folk are evil, is just so much randian bong smoke.

its kind of like that old saying, "good fences make good neighbors"...good regulation makes for better businessmen.

how you been doing, maasch?

Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/22/2007 @ 12:48am
We need an economic study of the cumulative annual corporate profit for underwriting healthcare insurance, plus the total of health insurer's long term reserves. Corporate profit on healthcare seems like a misallocated resource, especially as health insurance premiums grow at a double digit rates year after year.

Why not license three national underwriters who can compete for our business with uniform plan coverage options. Require the bylaws of the underwriters to plow profit back into the business to finance cost-reducing automation. Pay market rate salaries for qualified emloyees to grow the business.

I pay my health insurance premium out of pocket. Is it almost $500 per month for single coverage. It does not include prescription and my co-pays are $25 per visit $50 for the emergency room. In the long run, how much of my premium if profit?

Posted by NeilSagan at 06/22/2007 @ 01:46am
"Maybe America ranks so low in healthcare because we generally have a pretty good understanding of economics."

Umm I would just like to point out that Canada unlike the U.S is currently running in the black, and has been for over a decade, while the U.S sinks ever deeper into debt. So we have a universal healthcare system that provides quality, although sometimes slow service, to anyone who wants it, no national debt, and lower taxes on average then the U.S. So how exactly does universal healthcare destroy your economy and wipeout your taxpayers?

Posted by abaddon17 at 06/22/2007 @ 08:24am
Posted by CHASBOUGH 06/21/2007 @ 10:43pm

Okay, CHAS, since you decided to play the Godwin's Law card [en.wikipedia.org]....I'll play along.

If by pointing out what I feel are the inevitable end-results of what I admit is an INEVITABLE Federally-run health care system....I therefore am a "Holocaust sympathizer"...

You, being in favor of a universal health care system, MUST be a Stalinist who bemoaned the falling of the Berlin Wall.

Fair's fair,huh?

Posted by Mask at 06/22/2007 @ 08:45am
Posted by SLIVER 06/21/2007 @ 7:31pm | ignore this person

you are clueless. here's an idea. why don't you go for a year without health insurance. that should be no problem, according to you. or better yet, have your kids go without health insurance. then come back and report on it.

Posted by johannesrolf at 06/22/2007 @ 08:49am
Again, I'll simply say....you guys are going to win. You'll get it. "Universal health care", run and paid for by the Federal Government (actually just run by the Fed, WE will of course be paying for it).

And for a few years, I grant, it will SEEM "better than the disaster we had before". But the cracks in the dam will follow shortly. Doctors will bail out of the system. Those who remain (out of altruism and an almost Mother Teresa-style sense of self-sacrifice) will be over-worked, as will the nurses, PAs, EMTs, med-techs, etc.

To keep the system running, taxes will exponentially grow. Sooner or later, there won't be enough "top 1 or 2%ers" to drain dry, and the middle class will get hit. FICA will seem like a pittance, compared to what the "Federal Health Care Tax" cut of your paycheck will come to.

The eternal battle of an American people demanding more and more services, versus wanting lower taxes, versus politicians trying to do BOTH will stretch like an office rubber band pulled out five miles by tractor-trailers. Something will snap.

The only sane answer will be rationing. Taxes too high kill the economy and the system collapses. Endless benefits with not enough revenue lead to endless disasterous budget deficits.

They'll be looking for SOMEWHERE to cut costs. Too much taken from the providers (docs, nurses, etc) and they'll disappear. Can't touch the middle class, because that's where the tax money comes from and that's who votes. So....where to do it?

Obvious...isn't it? The poor and the elderly infirm. They don't vote (not the healthy elderly that I'm talking about, remember). So the cuts hit the "inner city", rural poor, and the senior long-term care facilities. The urban hospitals start to look like an AIDS ward in Rwanda....and the "E" word emerges (euthenasia) and people like David Corn, Katrina vanden Heuvel, etc. start telling us how "the system works fine in Europe...there are no abuses, no one is 'killed by the State', just 'relieved of pain from otherwise terminal illnesses like cancer and Alzheimers'"

And we go another round with skeptics (on the Right and Libertarian side) pointing out the horror stories of rationing from Europe....another round of the Left saying "Nuh-huh...you're just being hysterical and paranoid"....but eventually that happens too. And Grandma (as CRABWALK once suggested) gets the tubes pulled as soon as she's diagnosed, so that there's enough money to keep the Preemie neo-natal ward open and for Dad's bypass surgery.

"Hysteria!" "Paranoia!" "No basis in fact from other universal health care systems!!!"....Google "Netherlands" and "euthenasia" or "poor" and "screwed over".

BTW, I hope I'm wrong. But WHEN UHC gets passed, I'm going to start a nice little tax-free investment fund for my health care needs...and get my reservation in early for the private non-Government sponsored senior care centers that open up....just in case.

Posted by Mask at 06/22/2007 @ 09:11am
you cannot smoke LSD

Posted by johannesrolf at 06/22/2007 @ 09:13am
You don't need to see dishonest propaganda to denouce it.

Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 06/22/2007 @ 08:24am

That makes no sense at all. How would you know it is "dishonest" or "propaganda?"

Posted by Hman23 at 06/22/2007 @ 09:25am
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 06/22/2007 @ 09:13am

Don't keep Darin from his happy, healthy fantasy life. If he says LSD is smoked, well it must be true. Just like liberal democracy flowing throughout the ME.

Posted by crabwalk at 06/22/2007 @ 09:27am
One of the alleged superiorities of capitalism is competition. But, in this country, an really around he world, consolidation is the buzzword of corporations. Be it cutting refining capacity to control gas prices and keep record profits in the oil industry, or:

A new report from the American Medical Association documented the increasing consolidation of the US health insurance market, if that is what it should be called. As reported by the Baltimore Sun, "in each of 43 states, a handful of top insurers have gained such a stronghold that their markets are considered 'highly concentrated' under US Department of Justice Guidelines, often far exceeding the thresholds that trigger antitrust concerns. The study also shows that in 166 of 294 metropolitan areas, or 56 percent, a single insurer controls more than half the business in health maintenance organization and preferred provider networks underwriting." Furthermore, "critics say that carriers are not only creating monopolies and oligopolies in many regions, they also control the other side of the equation in what is known as monopsony power. That means in addition to having the most enrollees, they're also the biggest purchasers of health care and can dictate prices and coverage terms." The results is "double-digit premium increases from 2001 and 2004 - peaking with a 13.9 percent jump in 2003 - soaring well above inflation and wages increases."

The rising rates insurers and managed care organizations can charge as they increasingly dominate individual markets have helped fuel an even faster rise in the compensation given to their top leaders. The Wall Street Journal reported (available here through the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette) on the stunning good fortune of the CEO of UnitedHealth Group, Dr William McGuire. "He draws $8 million in salary plus bonus, enjoying perks such as personal use of the company jet. He also has amassed one of the largest stock-option fortunes of all time. Unrealized gains on Dr. McGuire's options totaled $1.6 billion, according to UnitedHealth's proxy statement released this month.

how much care could be provided if that money was plowed back into facilities and to cover the indigent.

How many stock options would Jesus take?

Posted by crabwalk at 06/22/2007 @ 09:31am
MBB -

For your sake, if you took up JR's challenge to go without insurance for a year, I would hope that the 1% chance wouldn't hit your family or it wouldn't be a higher tab than $20K, because the way the personal bankruptcy laws were overhauled, you might find yourself in a heap of trouble (in just the same way so many other thousands get screwed).

Posted by Hman23 at 06/22/2007 @ 09:31am
A friend is waiting 7 weeks for his MRI.

good thing we don't have rationing. He might have to wait 8 weeks. That would be unacceptable.

Posted by crabwalk at 06/22/2007 @ 09:35am
Conservatives: WRONG on Health Care

Uh, yeah...it does. You think "basic" coverage will STAY "basic" coverage? Posted by MASK 06/21/2007 @ 9:53pm | ignore this person

Froth, froth, liberal socialist froth, get rid of health care except for the wealthy ^^&**(%$% socialist liberal, liberal, liberal? Posted by JOHN MAASCH 06/21/2007 @ 9:53pm | ignore this person

The reason conservatives get so worked up is because (again, I generalizing) Liberals think the answer is more third-party payors. Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 06/21/2007 @ 9:53pm | ignore this person

Conservatives: WRONG on health care

If someone needs medical attention, just give it to them. Conservatives are obsessed with what will happen to premium care. Conservatives are obsessed that someone (like Dick Cheney who gets free premium medical care for life from Uncle Same) might abuse the system. Yes we Liberals must guard against excess in taking our victory, but your ridiculous hatred of the poor is for the dustbin of Hell.

Posted by conshame at 06/22/2007 @ 09:38am
If one live in outer Ontario, which is closer, Winnepeg, or the world class clinics in Minneapolis/St. Paul?

Could it be a matter of geography, not service? Does the Canadian care system reimburse citizens for out of pocket care received elsewhere?

Posted by crabwalk at 06/22/2007 @ 09:40am
I liked your posted recommendation NeilSagan. Sounds workable to me, a guy whose father said he "believed in insurance" (i.e. spreading risk so as to reduce pain/suffering), and a spouse who works for a private insurance adjuster and has become jaded/prejudiced/cynical by the, to her, disgusting amount of fraudulent "claiming" occurring.

"Underwriting" payouts for losses is a/THE key component which you suggest be apportioned to three big "competitors" rather than have the "gumment" (bless you Molly Ivins!) be the payer of last resort, which is what the Canadian model "single payer" system is, right?

Posted by lewwelge at 06/22/2007 @ 09:41am
Umm I would just like to point out that Canada unlike the U.S is currently running in the black, and has been for over a decade,

What!?? You don't borrow money from the communists? Hellfire and damnation, what kind of way is that to run a country?

Posted by crabwalk at 06/22/2007 @ 09:42am
WHY is it terrible, if someone needs medical attention (broken arm, broken toe, diabetes, arthritis, you name it). WHY is it terrible, to just give them the medical attention they need.

Why is that such a terrible, terrible thing to do?

Posted by conshame at 06/22/2007 @ 09:43am
I'm pretty sure that ANTILIBERAL is LUVLIBERTY reincarnated.

Posted by FRANKGRITS 06/21/2007 @ 11:38pm

FRANK,

You do recall that LV-SEPTEMBER-11-WITH-FALWELL-ENDORSED-BIBLICAL-QUOTES has claimed to have ... come back from the dead? For real! It occurred ("occurred") in the early 1970s and he was given up for dead in the morgue until ... until ... until he was resurected, reincarnated or whatever one wishes to call it!!! Ask him about it, if you get the chance, as he even gave out an email address last time to blather on about it more in "private".

However, if LV-SEPTEMBER-11 has in fact adopted a new name, the current one of ANTILIBERAL is at least more true to the shambolic garbage that he posts, since he is not "for" anything, just anti; starting with anti-intelligent given his knee-slapper assertion that "all" scientists are "socialists" (proof of either assertion? evidence to conjoin them causally?), thus there are only about 5 who doubt climate change, but they must be the ones telling the "truth" ... or that Gingrich is a "family man" ... or Bush is a "leader" ... or that Joe McCarthy is a "true American hero" ...

Yes, it is a different place indeed on Planet conservaClown.

Posted by Glenn Lemon at 06/22/2007 @ 09:49am
I would pay a few thousand dollars for teeth cleaning, a few check ups, an ear infection or two, maybe an ingrown toenail, and some perscriptions (Ambien). This is no more than a few thousand dollars and I'd be forced to evaluate the perceived benefits with the costs.

clueless. a few thousand dollars? people that live at the poverty level or close to it, a few thousand would mean going without food or paying rent. clueless, it bears repeating.

Posted by johannesrolf at 06/22/2007 @ 09:49am
Why are the business types willing to accept 28% overhead? Does any other industry have such high admin costs? I would think they would want to decrease it.

Posted by crabwalk at 06/22/2007 @ 09:49am
I think it's terrible that a billionaire like Dick Cheney gets free access to the very best premium health care in the world. That's for life, folks, not just for him, but for his entire family.

Why does Big Conservative Dick think it's just terrible, it's socialist if you give someone the health care they need. If someone needs physical therapy - and you give them medical attention - that is a terrible, terrible thing - WHY is that so terrible.

Posted by conshame at 06/22/2007 @ 09:50am
Why is that such a terrible, terrible thing to do? Posted by CONSHAME 06/22/2007 @ 09:43am

It might affect the stock price.

Pay attention.

Posted by crabwalk at 06/22/2007 @ 09:53am
Well, I mean, Big Dick Cheney doesnt care about the stock price, he didnt turn down that Government-Paid premium care for life for his family.

Posted by conshame at 06/22/2007 @ 09:54am
Good point CON. Why do retiring CEO's get free healthcare for life? they have the pockets to pay for anything. Why shouldn't chimpy and Howler Monkey pay for their care? Why do the people have to pay for the clot reducing medicine? Not only is it socialist in nature, it is bad for the country to keep him in office and healthy.

Posted by crabwalk at 06/22/2007 @ 09:56am
Tennesean

Tuesday, 06/12/07 Pay for America's top CEOs soars Half in study make more than $8.3 million a year

By ELLEN SIMON Associated Press

NEW YORK -- A new Associated Press calculation shows that compensation for America's top CEOs has skyrocketed into the stratospheric heights of pro athletes and movie stars: Half make more than $8.3 million a year, and some make much, much more. CEOs of companies in the Standard & Poor's 500 that filed proxy information in the first half of this year received a combined $4.16 billion in 2006, according to AP's formula.

In the Nashville area, the top-paid CEO among public companies, Community Health System's CEO Wayne T. Smith, made about one-tenth of that sum. His firm's proxy statement, filed earlier this year, lists his total annual compensation at $7.3 million

A recent report by the Congressional Research Service helps to put the executive pay issue into a real-world context. CEOs make, on average, 179 times as much as rank-and-file workers, double the 90-to-1 ratio in 1994, according to the agency's calculations. Options and stock awards helped boost CEO pay as much as sixfold during the 1990s economic expansion, according to compensation consultant Donald Delves. Then the stock market bubble burst in 2000 -- but CEO pay hasn't come down since.

By contrast, median household income edged up only 8.6 percent from 1990 to 2005, according to U.S. Census data.

Posted by crabwalk at 06/22/2007 @ 10:02am
If the minimum wage had risen at the same pace as CEO pay since 1990, it would be worth $22.61 today, according to the Institute for Policy Studies. Instead, the federal minimum wage will increase to $5.85 an hour on July 24, the first increase in a decade.

good for the goose......

Posted by crabwalk at 06/22/2007 @ 10:02am
Posted by CONSHAME 06/22/2007 @ 09:38am

CS, make another attempt to see if underneath your religious fervor, you have some rationality left....

"If someone needs medical attention, give it to them"....well, first we do that NOW. It's called an "emergency room" and by law they cannot turn away anybody.

But let's go further...if someone "needs" a nose job, do we give it to them?

Wait, before you answer...if we DON'T, it could hurt their self-esteem, and they'd continue to be cruelly mocked for their big schnozz....you wouldn't want to see that kind of cruelty contineued, would you!?!?!?

Posted by Mask at 06/22/2007 @ 10:02am
Whether it's Bush or Cheney you know it's dishonest propaganda.

Posted by crabwalk at 06/22/2007 @ 10:03am
Posted by CRABWALK 06/22/2007 @ 09:56am

Now to you....under a "universal health care" system you envision...

Will Bush and Cheney go to the same public hospital that everybody else goes to?

and if not, will you complain about it?

Posted by Mask at 06/22/2007 @ 10:04am
This is not only about emergency room care. It is about basic care that keeps people out of emergency rooms, the most expensive place to get care. Why do the neo-cons want people to get the most expensive care?

Posted by crabwalk at 06/22/2007 @ 10:06am
I complain about everything.

"the more you complain, the longer God lets you live".

I have it on a T-shirt. It must be true.

Posted by crabwalk at 06/22/2007 @ 10:07am
Mask - We are not talking about governemnt funded nosejobs. The slippery slope argument can be applied to nearly ANYTHING.

Posted by Hman23 at 06/22/2007 @ 10:11am
I was talking with our HR director at work a couple of weeks ago. She said our carrier . They deny, then each employee needs to fight for reimbursement for each procedure. This takes hours. X 400 employees. X the time for the insurance companies employee to fill out paperwork on every call. X the time the doctor has to spend on the phone with the insurance carrier explaining the need for the procedure.

a perfect system. We need no change.

we will be greeted as liberators.

Posted by crabwalk at 06/22/2007 @ 10:16am
oohh, sorry. didn't preview.

Our carrier denies every emergency room claim

Posted by crabwalk at 06/22/2007 @ 10:17am
You have high admin costs because the user doesn't police his own behavior through cost incentives so you have to high others to do it for him. It's the third party payor.

Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 06/22/2007 @ 10:15am

Oh, I see. It is the policy holders responsibility to keep admin costs down.

WTF?

Is it my responsibility to keep raw material costs down for the little three car companies?

Posted by crabwalk at 06/22/2007 @ 10:19am
Once again, a simple solution to overhead costs.

One set of forms that ALL healthcare insurers have to use. One number for the same procedure for ALL carriers. It would save billions.

but the carriers fight even this simple idea. It rocks the boat.

Posted by crabwalk at 06/22/2007 @ 10:22am
Posted by HMAN23 06/22/2007 @ 10:11am

Yes, HMAN, but the slippery slope argument is so much easier to make against people who feel it's "compassionate" to keep applying grease to the slope.

Example....would you favor RECONSTRUCTIVE plastic surgery to be covered under a "universal health care system"? You know, somebody has a bad car wreck, face gets torn up....surely, you'd favor the Fed ponying up to get some poor teenage girl's face fixed so she wouldn't have to wear her Elephant Man's hood to the Senior Prom, right?....Of course, we all would.

Okay, suppose same teenage girl was BORN with a massive schnozz...not just Barbra Streisand, but serious Baron Munchhausen type proboscis. [en.wikipedia.org] She's mercilessly teased, no dates, etc., etc.

and the local Federal doctor and Federal psychiatrist tell us that unless Mary Lou gets her rhinoplasty...she'll suffer long-term psychological damage.

Now...nobody's going to begrudge her a "trim" off the ol' Durante, are they? 'course not.

Now...suppose Mary Lou's got just a little bit of a bulge (Jessica Simpson style...or maybe Ashlee)....but her dad's best friend is the local Federal doc...and her mom's is the local Fed shrink....and THEY tell the "Board of Adjudication of Services" or whatever bureaucratic nightmare there will be that...."unless Mary Lou gets rhinoplasty she'll ' suffer long-term psychological damage'."

Bingo....free nose-jobs. And with enough "compassion grease" and "Why not? Improved self-esteem is a RIGHT under psychological health care...it's in the Constitution...uh....somewhere"....easy enough to reach.

Posted by Mask at 06/22/2007 @ 10:36am
Insurance premiums are hedge bets against one's own possible losses to merely mitigate/reduce the costs of accidents/illnesses. Therefore, the peace of mind any insurance affords, is a relative matter. In this patriarchal Calvinist culture, the presumption that those with the most to lose should pay more to "cover more" is quantified in "actuarial tables" which prioritize corporate profitability, the raison d'etre of the "business," over any valuation of any individual's health or well-being. This is why the Ray-gun/Gangrinch proposition that gumment (rest in peace Molly!) is inferior to "private" providers of services is THE fallacy upon which the neoconservatives keep harping. "Nothing's good or bad but thinking makes it so" is how a Greek Stoic philosopher put it, and altruism and meritocracy make the thieves, liars, greedheads and warpigs tremble. Fear not! Peace, please. Impeach Gonzo and Cheney first, please.

Posted by lewwelge at 06/22/2007 @ 10:36am
to CHAS: You don't know what you're talking about. $800 million wasn't his salary, it was stock options.....If he sold those options he drained money from Wall Street, not the hospital.

Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 06/22/2007 @ 08:54am

Doing good to help edumycate The Nation's economic/financial Neanderthals! One clarification on Option Riches, applicable to all industries, that enrages the Neanderthals is that those riches are `stolen' from non-Insider shareholders through SHARE DILUTION! Neanderthals tend to think of "Executives pigging out on the backs of workers", NOT SO!

As an investor-shareholder, my `rage' comes when such Option Riches were NOT EARNED through outperformance against direct competitors but rather through timid or crony Board of Directors! At times, the number of share options are also staggeringly high! Re-Pricing of Options are another direct assault/stealing on/from non-insider shareholders!

PS: Thanks for the `tips' on the "itmfa" stuffs!

Posted by Happy at 06/22/2007 @ 10:37am
Darin, a friend of mine is a partner in a successful medical practice. they have a staff of about ten that process insurance forms.Another friend is a PA in a cardio office. They have 6 to process forms. It is about 1 person/doctor, just to process paperwork. I base my opinions on lengthy conversations with them, and other physicians.They KNOW how much time is wasted, and how expensive it is. My DR friend spends hours a day arguing with providers for payment for services that he deems necessary.

We have a system that is set up to provide profit above care. Is that in your bible?

Posted by crabwalk at 06/22/2007 @ 10:43am
Why are the business types willing to accept 28% overhead? Does any other industry have such high admin costs?....

Posted by CRABWALK 06/22/2007 @ 09:49am

Ever wonder how high of an "overhead" our governments have? I'll bet that as it goes from the smaller Gov't unit (say city) to county to state to the Big Enchilada in DC, the overhead increases and increases.......It wouldn't surprise me in the least bit that at the Fed level, "overhead" is well over 50% if it adopts the Financial Accounting Standard Board's rules for public companies!

Qucik word on healthcare: Can't provide comprehensive solutions without drastic legal reform (reduce/stop preventive medicine alone could provide tens of millions with basic care) and a major change in thinking by super (2/3) majority of Americans to decide to give the Feds DIRECT and OVERT control over our healthcare FOR LIFE!

Posted by Happy at 06/22/2007 @ 10:45am
If options are not given, and the stock is retained by the company, what happens to that money? Does it disappear? Or could that money be used to offset premiums and keep profits at the same levels?

Posted by crabwalk at 06/22/2007 @ 10:48am
Posted by MASK 06/22/2007 @ 10:36am | ignore this person

Is this a serious post? That such inane nuggets of nonsense are even broached (and loaded with sober earnestness) says much about the insecurity and imbecility of al-amriki, unique flavor of moron. Whenever some droll character grabs a mic or heads a crowd all you hear is how great the nation is, how invincible the American drive is, what power the economy boasts, how superior everything associated with the USA is, yet once you isolate the patriotic atoms of the mass and get a little closer you find a sick orgy of flaws, ailments, insecurities, preoccupations and other signs of decay and degradation that make the loud bellows from the wirepuller or cheerleader du-jour ring hollow.

What MASK says is simple - if you don't look the part then be prepared for a life on the outside looking in, which is like being an actor denied the camera's eye. Not only do you diagnose the distempers of the world by simply hearing a cough here or a sneeze there, but you also go around dividing and conquering each other by the size of a nose, quality of clothing, robustness of bust or juiciness of stern. What better way to know a book than by simply looking at its cover? (But God forbid someone do the same unto the US.)

Posted by chimichenga at 06/22/2007 @ 10:49am
Posted by CHIMICHENGA 06/22/2007 @ 10:49am

Apart from a rhetorical mish-mash of nonsense and bizarrities....

did you actually refute my point?!?!?!?

LOL!

Posted by Mask at 06/22/2007 @ 10:54am
Whether you pay a tax, or a premium, we all pay. Medicare has overhead costs in the single digits.

The Premera study found that in 2004, Washington state hospitals had losses of 15.4% for services to Medicare beneficiaries, compared to profits of 2.9% for these services in 1997. Over the same period, hospitals' profit margins for patients with employer-sponsored health plans rose, from 5% to 16.4%. As the report put it, "This phenomenon can be thought of as a cost shift from the public programs to commercial payers. That is, if Medicare and Medicaid had paid higher hospital rates, commercial payer rates could have been lower with hospitals still achieving the same ... operating margins." The study found a similar trend for doctors' offices. Medicare pays physicians 25% to 31% less than private insurers do in Washington, and Medicaid pays about 30% less than private insurers for children's office visits and up to 54% less for adults' office visits.

In sum, the study found that hospitals in Washington state charged private insurers an additional $738 million in 2004 to compensate for losses incurred by treating patients under Medicare and Medicaid. Through the 1990s, by contrast, treatment of Medicare and Medicaid patients was profitable for both hospitals and physicians. The percentage profit was small--about 2% in Washington state--but it meant that Medicare and Medicaid were covering all direct expenses for their patients.

What accounts for this sharp reversal? The simple answer: the Bush tax cuts. In 2001, Bush inherited a 10-year budget surplus of around $5.6 trillion, according to Congressional Budget Office projections. "We can proceed with tax relief without fear of budget deficits, even if the economy softens. ... The projections for the surplus in my budget are cautious and conservative," the president claimed. But 2000 was the last year the United States ran a budget surplus. Between 2001 and 2003, the federal government saw that projected $5.6 trillion 10-year surplus turn into a projected 10-year deficit of $378 billion. And the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, primarily benefiting the wealthiest families, were the single most important cause of the new deficits, according to analyses by the Congressional Budget Office and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, among others.

To deal with the growing deficits, last year Congress passed the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. The new law did nothing to restore earlier tax levels, but did make major cuts in Medicare and Medicaid funding. For instance, the law cuts Medicaid spending by $4.8 billion over the next five years and by $26.1 billion over the next 10 years. The direct effects of these cuts will be to reduce reimbursements to hospitals and physicians--more of the income shortfalls described in the Premera report. No doubt these shortfalls will result in more cost shifting onto those with private coverage, who will continue to face steep increases in their premiums.

Posted by crabwalk at 06/22/2007 @ 10:54am
But there's one group not burdened at all by these difficulties: top health insurance executives. In 2003, the nonprofit watchdog group FamiliesUSA issued a report on executive pay in the 11 for-profit, publicly-traded health insurance companies that offer so-called Medicare+Choice plans, under which Medicare beneficiaries receive their coverage through a private insurer rather than directly from Medicare. Annual CEO compensation ranged from $1.6 million at Humana to $76 million at Oxford, with an average of $15.1 million. And these figures do not include the average of $57.6 million in unexercised stock options these top dogs held.

Sam Uretsky is a retired hospital pharmacist who frequently writes about health care policy and finanacing.

http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2006/0706uretsky.html

Posted by crabwalk at 06/22/2007 @ 10:56am
Whats this BS about Cheney claiming to be NOT a member of the Executive Branch?

Fantasy world.

Posted by crabwalk at 06/22/2007 @ 10:57am
Mask -

I must admit that the topic of healthcare is one that I usually shy away from discussing here. Frankly, I do not know enough about the system to give an opinion on what should be done to fix it. However, scare tactics of pointing out the possible extremes (done on BOTH sides) will accomplish little. Re: nose jobs, I guess I would hope that whatever taxpayer system was in place would show restraint and your second and third examples would not be the government's burden. Now I know the word "restraint" will set you off because we are talking about the government. But, health is a public issue that has benefits and costs on all of us. So, as with most things, I would hope that the answer lies somewhere in the middle and a reasonable compromise can be reached. And sure, any "solution" will not be perfect for everyone or for every conceivable situation. Problems will arise, and the solution may need to be altered as we move forward. But, seems to me that the status quo is a big problem.

Posted by Hman23 at 06/22/2007 @ 11:09am
MASK,

You make no point but shining a light on the insanity and infirmity of your society. For a people so apparently awed by God (and frightened of the Devil and his fathomless plots to bring you and your children down to Hades), never ceasing to stress the predilection He has towards your country - and your undying faith in bombs as disciples and missionaries - you seem to do much to alter His more routine works and tweakings of fortune, be it a disfiguring car wreck or the placement of a beak on one's face. Your argument can be refuted by simply reading The Sneetches by Dr. Seuss.

God makes some people less-attractive than others. He also makes some children suffer enormously upon entrance into this world and has a tendency to snatch them up in the nastiest of ways. Bombs are dropped on people in His name. Yet for all your pious ramblings about the Almighty and His will you never miss a moment to remind each other of the endless line of people belonging to the sideshow and therefore deserving derision, thus showing no pity on the less-handsome flowers in God's garden. This is an all-American pastime, hell, you have TV shows dedicated to "freaks" and the Eden of plastic surgery, hence all the seriousness about the best ways to finance such priorities. Ah, but you want to liberate the world and bring peace and harmony to all mankind, for all men are created equal, no? A nosejob here, Lean Cuisine regime for this one, pair of Levis there, Happy Meal over here, electric toothbrush over yonder ought to do it, right?

The Loonies are alive and well�.

Posted by chimichenga at 06/22/2007 @ 11:16am
Mask-There are people who abuse whatever system exits and so one cannot go by that to determine anything since any system can be abused.Yes,there will be some people who get away with elective nose jobs just as there are people who get away with various forms of insurance fraud.Any system can be abused.

Posted by i'm nobody at 06/22/2007 @ 11:21am
What the brilliant prodigies like MASK fail to realize over and over again is that you and only you should take responsibility for your own health care. Depending on a doctor who gets most of his info (and increasingly, education) from the pharmaceutical industry is ludicrous, for everyone knows who the latter depends on - the idiot who makes one bad choice after another, whether it be eating fastfood, smoking cigarettes, avoiding any form of physical exercise or submitting to the myriad other forms of assault that the television effects on your self-esteem that engender the problems you then run to the doctor to remedy after seeing the ad for Crestor, Prilosec or some other godsend.

Don't you realize that American society is one in which people autointoxicate themselves while they run the rat race and seek instant gratification, whether it be for a new car, Polo shirt or relief for GERD? The vast majority of ailments you people suffer from are self-inflicted and the doctors and pharma houses are laughing all the way to the bank. Jessica Simpson savors a slice of Pizza Hut pizza while chugging a Pepsi� People eating Big Macs look so cool on the boob tube� There are drive-thrus at restaurants, CVS, banks, even Las Vegas churches so you don't have to get your fat ass out of the car� commercials for alcohol sandwiched in between ads for automobiles� Burger King and Wendy's commercials interlarded with the latest treatment (not cure) from Phizer or Merk to help the high blood pressure, ED, stomach acid or other symptom caused by those Whoppers and french fries bought at the drive-thru�

You eat crap, don't exercise and work too much, causing poor health, stress and various other disorders that the pharma houses then claim to have the cure for. And as usual, the cure may cause some side-effects that could require other pills, thus making the "cure" for your latest problem bring on even more problems, but don't worry - we can treat those too. Then throw in some propaganda about aging being sinonymous with failure and boom! You have a whole industry dedicated to helping people feel less afflicted by the society that has made the most natural human process unattractive and ugly...

No matter what, there is always something wrong with you - and always some doctor and his pharma financier around the corner with some snakeoil for you. How about educating yourselves and taking care of your minds and bodies instead of being an empty glass in front of the idiot box with a wad of cash to be filched by those who profit by making you sick and then treating, not curing, your sickness?

Posted by chimichenga at 06/22/2007 @ 11:49am
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 06/22/2007 @ 11:34am | ignore this person

Another bright American dumbsky - if you can't make a buck, there's no sense in doing anything. The only form of incentive must have dollars attached to it, otherwise what's the point? Dreams that don't generate revenue aren't dreams worth striving to make real...

Posted by chimichenga at 06/22/2007 @ 11:57am
So Chimi's answer the the problem is don't get sick. Thanks. Great contribution.

Posted by Hman23 at 06/22/2007 @ 11:58am
CHIMI,

Bienvenido, no has estado aqui con en mucho tiempo.

D�os mio, �puedes hacer sus comentarios con una rapidez casi increiable! Y, el importante, correcto en todo con respecto de la mentalidad estadouniduense que provoca los tontorias de MASCARA (y el no es el peor en esta grupo de cuidadanos �m�s parecido la mitad!).

Espero que estas muy bien, muy contento en la sud con mujeres bonitas, con sol y cielo azul cada d�a -- y sin LEN DROSS a tu mesa del almeurzo, es verdad, aunque habias lo invitado. Sin embargo, su mesa es siempre un mesa para uno (con zapatatos enormes) ...

Posted by Glenn Lemon at 06/22/2007 @ 12:08pm
Posted by HMAN23 06/22/2007 @ 11:58am | ignore this person

No, you rabid ganef, I'm saying you need to open your fucking eyes and learn how to take care of yourselves instead of following every idiotic trend, despite the detriments to your body many of them wreak. What's the matter with you?

Posted by chimichenga at 06/22/2007 @ 12:11pm
Chimi -

I got that. And agreed. So, what to do about the Americans who do take care of themselves? Because, in contrast to your insulting rant on fat, lazy Americans, there are plenty that do the best they can, and still suffer under our current system.

Posted by Hman23 at 06/22/2007 @ 12:20pm
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 06/22/2007 @ 12:10pm | ignore this person

If you are being sincere, I appreciate it. You absolutely have the right to eat, drink and loaf as you please. I'm not saying the government should whip you into shape and deprive you of Twinkies and root beer, but I do think it's clear that with the increase of food additives, bi-products, colorings, sweetners such as sucralose and aspartame and an endless array of artificial ingredients and adulterated rubbish that are pawned off as food, but not recognized as such by the human body, hence the ailments and allergies it manifests as a result of its inability to identify the trash that constitutes the Standard American Diet as real provender.

I've worked in pharmaceuticals and can tell you that during Initial Product Training, before you even hit the street, you're taught that healthy people do not generate revenues. The food industry, medical institutes, PR people, pharma houses and FDA have come a long way in creating a society in which people eat shit and get therefore get not only sick, but suffer from a legion of ailments that didn't even exist a few decades ago. Actually, there are plenty that didn't exist just a few years ago - Restless Leg Syndrome is a perfect example. Look at the degradation of the food in the US and the increase in all types of cancers and you'll see some pretty amazing correlations, not to mention the obesity, allergies, diabetes, ADD, depression, anxiety, ED, GERD...

Posted by chimichenga at 06/22/2007 @ 12:23pm
Posted by GLENN LEMON 06/22/2007 @ 12:08pm | ignore this person

�Qu� onda?

Todo bien en el sur y claro siempre gozo de tener tantas mujeres besadas por el sol a mi alrededor. Gracias por tus palabras e igual te echo cepillo por lo que has contribuido ac�. Claro sigo apuntando a los gringuitos y sus pendejadas sobre todo unos de los cabr�nes que a�n pasan tiempo aqu� hablando nada sino mierda siempre que puedan. Me asusta tanto la mentalidad del pueblo sobre todo cuando veo tantos que no son muy tontos aqu� con sus ideas est�pidas mientras hay millones que ni tienen tanto cerebro que poseen peor ideas que MASK, LL o el gran puto LEN MOSS. �Que siga la lucha!

Posted by chimichenga at 06/22/2007 @ 12:32pm
I hear all these stories about the long lines people must wait in to receive treatment in countries providing universal health care. Perhaps it is true, but it is true here in the United States as well. I have been through it. I sat with my wife and two children for several hours in an emergency room in Huntsville, AL before she received treatment for her thumb that had been crushed in a car door. The bill ran over $1000! On several occasions I have sat for hours with my children, waiting to see a pediatrician for a SCHEDULED appointment. I have lost doctors, because they did not accept my insurance. I have been without work, dreading that anyone in my family would get sick, because I would be unable to afford healthcare. When I lived in Houston, friends there told me that if I needed a heart transplant or cancer treatment, I could not be in a better place. They then looked at my wife and said, "...but don't have a baby here."

Some posts have suggested that universal healthcare might stifle innovation. Does not the fear of losing insurance coverage, which prevents you from leaving your big corporate job to start your own business, stifle innovation as well?

Our country is already socialized, but in a very perverse way. We have public roads that encourage sprawl and the wasteful use of gasoline. We have corporate welfare. Our tax dollars fund companies which could not stay in business if it were not for the climate of fear generated by our "War on terroism." Our government uses our tax money to enrich professional soldiers (think Blackwater and the like) to kill people overseas. I could go on and on. It seems that the US government uses more tax dollars to enrich corporate executives and to kill than it does to heal.

Knowing that, someone please save me a place in line at a European hospital.

Posted by raaustin at 06/22/2007 @ 12:48pm
I get the sense the Chimi believes the "answer" is for government to force me to live a better life according to Chimi's definition of "better".

Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 06/22/2007 @ 12:10pm

Darin,

Looks like you have signed up with RIO KORESH's campaign against Canada as a third-world totalitarian state. You'll have to ask him for the details but one can be sure they include the health scheme, perhaps also posited as being designed by one person who somehow circumvented the entire bureaucracy and its procedures to impliment "his" system.

Just wondering though how the unbridled State expansion to tyranical specifications that you are raving about like Freidman re-incanrated impacts on you and other citizens via ... the universal mail service?

Surely there is a slippery slope in there, n'est-ce pas?.

Having that black booted agent of the State apparatus approach your door or driveway each and every day, save Sunday, must put quite a chill into a market ubers-alles enthusiast (although if George W. Loser personally opened and read said mail, it would be an occasion to mint new aplogetics or even hymns of praise toward State intrusions for the the 26-percenters who drool stagnant rivers of gibberish for their MaximumCheerLeader here).

Am also wondering about how thoroughly abstracted your claims. It suggests, at minimum, that you may never have been in an hospital in another nation (or even stepped foot abroad for that matter) but rahter rely on spastic handwaving from the Heritage Foundation as your eyes and ears on the world. Have any concrete data from a viable source to affirm that the largely private US system performs better than the rest of the industrialized states? And I don't mean an anecdote -- one that is likely invented and circulated by some rightwing think tank staffed by D-list masters degree dropouts going apeshit about a US tourist in (say) Italy whose real problem at the health clinic was likely that he or she couldn't speak the fucking local lanaguage.

Surely if the US system is right and everyone else is perishing in the hallways of their clinics because functionaries have not pushed the paper yet, there would be a literal mountain of data to back this up. So, marshal it out. Please.

Posted by Glenn Lemon at 06/22/2007 @ 1:03pm
Posted by HMAN23 06/22/2007 @ 11:09am

I TOO would hope that restraint will be possible...but am dubious.

If for the fact that restraint is both not a trait of the Government, nor those who advocate more and more Government largesse. In fact, some (like I'M NOBODY) already acknowledge the abuse of the system...and notice, he said NOTHING about fixing or stopping that abuse...just accepted it as part of the "price we must pay".

That kind of attitude and of course traditional "compassion" from the Left will be the fertilizer for the growth of UHC into any and EVERYTHING that people want....from free orthodontistry to free nose-jobs to free Govt' yoga lessons to phobia allievement courses.

Any and everything will be "part of health care" with a catch-all of "mental health care" to add any and everything that "makes people feel bad" or "hurts their self-esteem" thrown in as well.

See, it's the main problem I have with liberals and liberalism....they don't "self-correct". It took a GOP Congress and a "triangulating" New Democrat to reform welfare....not the liberals. But primarily (I think) due to their massive egos, they refuse to acknowledge that their ideas are flawed and need fixing...it's always "it just needs more time and of course more money!"...

Hence, I think when we get the crown jewel of liberalism, "free health care", it will produce the same abuses and failures....and those who advocated for it....WON'T be the ones fixing it.

Posted by Mask at 06/22/2007 @ 1:12pm
BTW, ironic on a thread about Moore's latest film (and his trip to Cuba), that CHIMI chimed in....given CHIMI's feelings about Cuba--

"I DON'T SUPPORT FIDEL CASTRO OR CUBA. What is more, I WOULD SUPPORT A US INVASION OF CUBA IN ORDER TO TAKE OUT FIDEL AND TRULY LIBERATE THE 11 MILLION PEOPLE SUFFERING UNDER HIS REGIME."---Posted by CHIMICHENGA 12/20/2006 @ 2:07pm

Posted by Mask at 06/22/2007 @ 1:14pm
OK, MBB, so how, exactly, do you provide for the poor in this regard?

Posted by Hman23 at 06/22/2007 @ 1:26pm
and having government peons ration care.

Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 06/22/2007 @ 1:18pm

Prove that it is rationed, as you say, in other rich nations like Canada, Hollad, Japan, et cetera -- and not effectively rationed by price mechanisms when these are put into play, thereby excluding people form necessary and preventive care.

This is the core of the argument, yet you treat it as a peripheral matter to be asserted in passing at the end, simply by conjuring the same brutally over-worked talking points from the industry echo chamber.

Posted by Glenn Lemon at 06/22/2007 @ 1:27pm
Mask-I did not state that we must accept abuse,as you know, so why did you make that up?I acknowledged the ability to abuse any system including our present system.I love the way you claim everyone,but you, needs to come up with solutions.In what way don't liberals self correct any more than you or anyone else?What's your solution?

Posted by i'm nobody at 06/22/2007 @ 1:33pm
Posted by CHIMICHENGA 12/20/2006 @ 2:07pm

Posted by MASK 06/22/2007 @ 1:14pm

MASK,

You really need a hobby. Badly. I consider myself a serious poster here in volume of contributions if nothing else. And I do often rely on memory to throw people's claims back in their faces (notably, LV-SEPTEMBER-11 whose crazed, "get-this-man-into-a-straightjacket-now-before-he-goes-Cho!!!" anti-humanity lunacy leaves one gobsmacked enough to recall even more than one might wish).

But keeping dossiers for those precious "gotcha'" moments??? As I said: You need a hobby, man.

Posted by Glenn Lemon at 06/22/2007 @ 1:33pm
Prove that it is rationed, as you say, in other rich nations like Canada, Hollad, Japan, et cetera --

Posted by GLENN LEMON 06/22/2007 @ 1:27pm

Here, GLENN, let me help you out....Warning, this is from that noted "right-wing propagandist" the...

Journal of General Internal Medicine

Prevalence and Determinants of Physician Bedside Rationing: Data from Europe Posted 02/08/2007

Samia A. Hurst; Anne-Marie Slowther; Reidun Forde; Renzo Pegoraro; Stella Reiter-Theil; Arnaud Perrier; Elizabeth Garrett-Mayer; Marion Danis

Abstract and Introduction Abstract

Background: Bedside rationing by physicians is controversial. The debate, however, is clouded by lack of information regarding the extent and character of bedside rationing.

Design, Setting, and Participants: We developed a survey instrument to examine the frequency, criteria, and strategies used for bedside rationing. Content validity was assessed through expert assessment and scales were tested for internal consistency. The questionnaire was translated and administered to General Internists in Norway, Switzerland, Italy, and the United Kingdom. Logistic regression was used to identify the variables associated with reported rationing.

Results: Survey respondents (N=656, response rate 43%) ranged in age from 28 to 82, and averaged 25 years in practice. Most respondents (82.3%) showed some degree of agreement with rationing, and 56.3% reported that they did ration interventions. The most frequently mentioned criteria for rationing were a small expected benefit (82.3%), low chances of success (79.8%), an intervention intended to prolong life when quality of life is low (70.6%), and a patient over 85 years of age (70%). The frequency of rationing by clinicians was positively correlated with perceived scarcity of resources (odds ratio [OR]=1.11, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.06 to 1.16), perceived pressure to ration (OR=2.14, 95% CI 1.52 to 3.01), and agreement with rationing (OR=1.13, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.23).

Conclusion: Bedside rationing is prevalent in all surveyed European countries and varies with physician attitudes and resource availability. The prevalence of physician bedside rationing, which presents physicians with difficult moral dilemmas, highlights the importance of discussions regarding how to ration care in the most ethically justifiable manner.

Posted by Mask at 06/22/2007 @ 1:33pm
But keeping dossiers for those precious "gotcha'" moments??? As I said: You need a hobby, man.

Posted by GLENN LEMON 06/22/2007 @ 1:33pm

Actually GLENN, as above (Posted by MASK 06/22/2007 @ 1:33pm) sometimes the "gotcha" moments don't even take MINUTES to occur!

LOL!

Posted by Mask at 06/22/2007 @ 1:34pm
,i>Hey, there's our answer to the national debt. If we set up a system that pays people to receive medical care, we just have to have them do it over and over and eventually we'll be able to pay off the debt from the taxes generated from the money they make from receiving health care.

Brilliant!

Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 06/21/2007 @ 3:12pm

Why do conservatives think everything is about money? Universal health insurance for all of our citizens is about doing the right thing.

Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 06/22/2007 @ 1:45pm
MASK,

WE have clang associations "Europe" and "ration". So, tell us, what does this mean:

Results: Survey respondents (N=656, response rate 43%) ranged in age from 28 to 82, and averaged 25 years in practice. Most respondents (82.3%) showed some degree of agreement with rationing,

I cannot determine if it is the patients or the practioners who are being surveyed here. That's pretty key, don't you think -- just who was it who was asked? Can you help us out? This may mean reading what you cut and paste beforehand, an awesome burden when you have to ration so much time to respond to/evade/trnasmorgrify so many posts (he heh) ...

Posted by Glenn Lemon at 06/22/2007 @ 1:46pm
Another myth in L'America is that the government has a genuine care for its people and wants them to be healthy, wealthy and happy. How do they react to the procurement of cheap generics in M�xico or Canada? Threaten the elderly or resort to scaremongering with claims about terrorists tampering with said medications. Food? Take milk for example. A normal cow produces about 400 gallons of milk in nature, but with bovine growth hormone and other drugs cows can produce upwards of 4000 gallons, though the milk is laden with the chemicals that allow for such production and are proven to cause health problems not only for the animals, but for the human consumers as well. And what of raw milk? Do some research - it is very good for you and full of probiotics that are very beneficial to the human body (though clearly milk is not a necessary food beyond infancy). Raw milk is illegal in most states. They want you drinking the mass-produced, chemical-laden crap that the corporations produce, claiming you might get tuberculosis. Well, if you take care of your cows (not hard to do) you can avoid this. Same with chickens and their eggs - the rate of salmonella is 1 in 30.000 eggs in the US.

Another example of the government and their corporate financiers pushing human feed (out of their own gain and greed) is the hype over soy. Do some research and you'll see that soy has been linked to breast cancer in women and has been strongly correlated to the overall smaller height of Asians when compared to westerners since soy actually inhibits the body's processing of protein and therefore, growth. Many studies have shown how Asians who were born in the US of people born in Asia are taller than their parents. It is believed that the greater variety and abundance of protein sources, and thus a diminished reliance upon soy, is to blame for this. Yet where isn't soy being pushed as an alternative to meat and milk? They're making everything out of soy these days - and making a pretty penny in the process. They care about nothing but your money, which they get by making you stupid, scared and sick...

Posted by chimichenga at 06/22/2007 @ 1:50pm
MBB, thanks for the making the point that the word "collectivist" is less perjoratively laden than "socialist." I didn't like your categorizing me as an indiscriminently naive "do gooder" wannabe, however, for tentatively mentioning actuarial tables as perhaps providing the best (most objective) historical method to describe and predict, and thus inform policy making, which is what we're discussing here in terms of "health care."

Posted by lewwelge at 06/22/2007 @ 1:53pm
MASK,

My mistake! It does say "in practice" in the quoted part thus cuing that it was doctor's who were surveyed. I was thrown off by the age range (28-82) that seemed more like patients than practicing doctors.

But be advised that you're still not out of the woods yet as my fundemental point still stands. What are the oprational definiations of the terms here? Is time spent at the bedside being what is construed as rationed? Are these people who are considered hopeless cases in which there is a ethical question for the family and the professionals as to whether care should be continued? What? You have given us an inkblot as it stands.

It's your evidence, so tell us what it means, explain this center of your evidential universe to us, and so on.

Posted by Glenn Lemon at 06/22/2007 @ 1:54pm
4 urgent progressive goals that need the attention of true progressives, regardless of party...

1. reform and re-institution of old media laws that limited ownership for news bearing media outlets. corporations owning multiple media outlets who also own non media entities (or the opposite) are a recipe for disaster for a democracy that depends on free flow of accurate information. i include the struggle to resist the takeover of the internet by these same corporate propagandists in this.

2. campaign finance reform along the lines of european/australian/canadian systems. our current system is a joke whenre, in its worst case amounts to monied interests choosing the two candidates we are forced to choose between. no wonder a lot of schmuks become alienated and cynical about "politics" - they percieve the bullshit truth. i still detest the "everything sux" excuse to ignore the meaningful and drown in self absorbed pettiness and trivial diversion, but again, an effed up electoral system is partly to blame - and the neocon types love it just the way it is (a plutocracy as opposed to a representative democracy)

3. reform of tax codes...simplification and relief for the schmuks, reinstitution of "death tax" for uber rich and a little bit more soaking of the same...more important in the long run is a re-designed corporate tax code that rewards and re-inforces socially responsible corporate behavior.

4. healthcare overhaul. parasitic profiteering has no place in this area.

other issues abound, many related to these, but in my experience limiting one's efforts increases the chance for success. one mess at a time.

Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/22/2007 @ 1:54pm
MBB -

Some of the things you suggest seem fairly reasonable. Like I said to Mask, the correct solution is likely somewhere in between the extremes people are bickering about. The trick will be to find out where that is.

Posted by Hman23 at 06/22/2007 @ 1:55pm
I should have written the "best" solution.

Posted by Hman23 at 06/22/2007 @ 1:56pm
Want to make the nation a lot healthier? Eat lower on the food chain and realize that good food is the best medicine. I never get sick - I mean like it's been years since I've gotten even a cold. Granted, there are some things, say genetics, that you cannot overcome, but if people in the US truly ate more grains other than corn, consumed more water and fiber, eliminated most sugars and sodas and fried foods, did a bit of exercise - maybe walk? - and actually made an effort to understand their body and its relationship to the mind and overall well-being, they'd be a hell of a lot better off. It doesn't take much and it isn't very expensive, especially when compared to the trips to the doctor, pharmacy and maybe even the crowded hospital. So long as you let them poison your mind, your body will always follow.

Posted by chimichenga at 06/22/2007 @ 1:59pm
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 06/22/2007 @ 10:13am | ignore this person

you can give the working poor what the old and the very poor have, free health insurance.

Posted by johannesrolf at 06/22/2007 @ 1:59pm
That is exactly what I believe because I believe market mechanism are the best way to allocate scarce resources among competing interests. I even believe that when the resources can mean the difference between life and death.

DARIN,

Apparently inadvertantly, you are making my point. You go straight to a Chicago School dogma, an assertion, a one-size-fits-all lurch toward explanation. To wit: "because I believe market mechanism are the best way to allocate scarce resources among competing interests."

Period.

Lemme put reality into the frame: This is an empirical question as it intrsects with the behavior of the health system and the quest for what works best. So furnish the evidence that private mechanisms perform better than other comparably wealthy industrial states that are delivering universal services for the citizenry as whole, for the average guy, for the lower income family, and so on.

Again, this should be easy, a cake walk with flowers hurled toward Triumphal Marketized Medicine Man, if your dogma was empirically sound.

Posted by Glenn Lemon at 06/22/2007 @ 2:00pm
most people would get an extra $5000 from their employer.

Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 06/22/2007 @ 1:41pm

A follow-up: On what do you base this presumption?

Posted by Hman23 at 06/22/2007 @ 2:00pm
a close number 5, by the way, is re-institution of some tarriffs and protectionism. i fear the loss of manufacturing capacity in this country for national security reasons, and the fact is that in order to compete with less developed nations who pay workers slave wages and mistreat them some form of tarrif is needed. eventually we will find ourselves incapable of producing some items that potential enemies churn out easily...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/22/2007 @ 2:02pm
Posted by CHIMICHENGA 06/22/2007 @ 1:59pm | ignore this person

you can do much better than that. most health care expenses are in a person's last years of life.

Posted by johannesrolf at 06/22/2007 @ 2:02pm
Chiminey makes a good point. Most of our healthcare problems are self-inflicted. I have too much stress, exercise too little and eat like shit so I weigh close to 300 lbs. I'm only 41 -MBB

and there you have it. Obesity is one of the major contributors to the Big Killers, heart disease and diabetes. Too rich to have some around talking about personal responsibility but they cannot control their basic caloric intake or go for a walk 1/2 hr a day. Three of the biggest proponents of this personal responsibility around here are obese, LUVVY, MAASCH and now MBB. This cost everyone else money in higher healthcare costs, but will rant endlessly about paying taxes to support a system that seeks to prevent health problems from reaching ER's.

As Bloomberg has shown in NYC, guvt can step in and made a good attempt at changing self destructive behavior. Smoking is WAY down in NYC and trans fats are out. Not through market forces, which have the opposite effect, but by guvt mandate.

Posted by crabwalk at 06/22/2007 @ 2:03pm
Posted by HMAN23 06/22/2007 @ 2:00pm | ignore this person

a fantastical belief that if employers stopped paying for insurance they would automatically pass that money on to the employees.

Posted by CHIMICHENGA 06/22/2007 @ 1:59pm

YUP!. It is interesting to me that so many will spend hours a week tracking their portfolios, but will not get off their ass and exercise. We don't need to all look like Nicole Ritchie, but good god people, this country is F-A-T and it is killing us.

Corn syrup and the industries surrounding it have not helped our personal conditions, nor have the environmental effects of massive factory farms been factored into commodity prices.

Posted by crabwalk at 06/22/2007 @ 2:17pm
I believ single payor is a dumb way to do it.

Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 06/22/2007 @ 2:17pm | ignore this person

that must be the reason so many countries have adopted that model. we are not close to the best in infant mortality.

Posted by johannesrolf at 06/22/2007 @ 2:23pm
i fear the loss of manufacturing capacity in this country for national security reasons IBBLE

Excellent point. this is overlooked by the fearful globalization proponents. The ones that want strong militaries based worldwide and want the cheapest production facilities. If China decides to implement it's policy of One China (you know, the Hamas-like policy that says Taiwan has no right to exist) and the US gets pulled into a massive war with China, where are we going to get our equipment from? Our machinists will be dead because we don't train new ones, our factories will be moth balled.

but, a group CEO's that work 179 times more efficiently than every one else will step in and save the day. Tah-dah!

Posted by crabwalk at 06/22/2007 @ 2:26pm
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 06/22/2007 @ 2:23pm

You are saying that our obesity epidemic has no effect on health care costs?

supply and demand?

You do have a full fantasy life, don't you.

Posted by crabwalk at 06/22/2007 @ 2:29pm
CDC report:

Overweight and obesity and their associated health problems have a significant economic impact on the U.S. health care system (USDHHS, 2001). Medical costs associated with overweight and obesity may involve direct and indirect costs (Wolf and Colditz, 1998; Wolf, 1998). Direct medical costs may include preventive, diagnostic, and treatment services related to obesity. Indirect costs relate to morbidity and mortality costs. Morbidity costs are defined as the value of income lost from decreased productivity, restricted activity, absenteeism, and bed days. Mortality costs are the value of future income lost by premature death.

National Estimated Cost of Obesity

According to a study of national costs attributed to both overweight (BMI 25�29.9) and obesity (BMI greater than 30), medical expenses accounted for 9.1 percent of total U.S. medical expenditures in 1998 and may have reached as high as $78.5 billion ($92.6 billion in 2002 dollars) (Finkelstein, Fiebelkorn, and Wang, 2003).

MBB reminds me of Johnny Depp

"You are the worst actuarial I have ever heard of"

"But, at least you've heard of me".

Posted by crabwalk at 06/22/2007 @ 2:34pm
CAFE standards have created an extra 1300 - 2600 preventable traffic deaths per year. And these aren't even near end of life deaths.

Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 06/22/2007 @ 2:41pm

how many lives have been saved or been increased in duration due to fewer lung diseases and lack of lead in our gasoline? I'll go out on a limb and say more than 2600/year.

Posted by crabwalk at 06/22/2007 @ 2:46pm
My post disappeared. ???

How many deaths from lung disease/cancer have been prevented by having cleaner air due to CAFTA standards? How about the evil liberals demanding lead be removed from gasoline? How many millions of lives has that saved/extended?

Posted by crabwalk at 06/22/2007 @ 2:50pm
Posted by GLENN LEMON 06/22/2007 @ 1:54pm

Sorry GLENN, realize that after failing to nitpick the data, you're now forced to nitpick the "terms"...but that wasn't your original point was it....let's go back an hour or so-

Prove that it is rationed, as you say, in other rich nations like Canada, Hollad, Japan, et cetera -- Posted by GLENN LEMON 06/22/2007 @ 1:27pm

Sort of DID that, didn't it? So, how about FIRST, before we get into terms (or doctors or patients)....we start with a GLENN LEMON- "I was wrong, they DO practice rationing in rich nations. MBB was right" post?

No?....yeah, see this was my point back on (Posted by MASK 06/22/2007 @ 1:12pm)...

the innate INABILITY of so-called "progressives" (liberals, leftists, whatever) to admit when they are wrong, apologize, or (in the case on enacted policy) FIX what they broke or made worse or simply didn't HELP.

I don't expect it from the Hard Right (look at how RIO, LVLIB, BARRY STILL think we can "win" in Iraq)....but "supposedly" the Left is smarter.

Time after time, that is proven wrong by the one true characteristic of intellect....the ability to admit error and to self-correct.

Posted by Mask at 06/22/2007 @ 3:13pm
BTW, speaking of "gotcha" moments, saving posts, and PARTICULARLY health care rationing....here's an expert opinion---

BLOG | Posted 03/24/2007 @ 8:54pm Edwards Stands Out On Health Care Debate Marc Cooper

"NATION STAFF: how about a story on wether or not Oregons system is working? This trial ranks procedures by efficacy and cost/benefit. It leads to.. (gasp) rationing, which is what we need in some form. Paying out hundreds of thousands to keep Grandma alive for a few more weeks is not a sustainable system."----Posted by CRABWALK 03/25/2007 @ 05:09am

Posted by Mask at 06/22/2007 @ 3:15pm
a fantastical belief that if employers stopped paying for insurance they would automatically pass that money on to the employees.

Posted by CRABWALK 06/22/2007 @ 2:17pm

Thank you. MBB, this was the presumption I wrote of. Why do you assume your employer would be so generous as to let all of that $5K go right into your pay?

Posted by Hman23 at 06/22/2007 @ 3:22pm
What I don't get is, with so many millions possessing lousy if not horrible health, how does the US continue to criticize the systems of other nations? The Global Doctor never fails to diagnose the problems of the world while disimulating his own, which are often greater than those suffered by the patients he complains about. Kind of like trying to get me to listen to a dentist who has a bag of Rolly Ranchers and a dirty ashtray on his desk...

Posted by chimichenga at 06/22/2007 @ 3:26pm
Posted by MASK 06/22/2007 @ 1:12pm |

perhaps with more dems or dem-likes such as yourself we would not need pubs.

look...tax goes into gov...what comes out?

if the vast majority of what comes out benefits primarily the already wealthy, such as military industriial spending resulting from unnecessary wars rather than social infrastructure, then in fact higher tax rates and "death taxes" on the uber wealthy arenot, in fact, a redistribution of wealth in the robin hood sense, but either simply a fancy money laundering operation at best or a slick reverse robin hood scheme at worst (the wet dream of neoconservatism).

health care is intrinsically related to this lie laced dysfunctionality. the acceptable parasitism needed to maintain a healthy business climate in most endeavors is unacceptable in areas where greed kills, like healthcare and the military. hell, an anemic government regulatory and social welfare apparatus, depending on the benevolence of greed and industry self regulation is a recipe for disaster, as evil and immoral folk will almost NEVER regulate themselves and therefore will poison the business climate for all business types who would love to "play by the rules" but can't because there are no (enforceable) and if they hold themselves to a higher, socially concious plane, they will be destroyed by their morally challenged fellows.

what does this have to do with healthcare? everything. how is it that randian supermen, in their demigodly wisdom, ignore the fact that eventually schmuks strike back? and when they do it can get ugly.

a functional social welfare system, which includes more than healthcare, is the ultimate best insurance for the safety and welfare of the wealthy. but angry greed blinded morally vacuous types dont get it. talk about something for nothing.

and suprise suprise suprise! this old world aint perfect! public programs almost always involve some waste, graft and corruption. slackers and free riders have ever and will ever hitch on. but to deny the benefits of such to the vast majority of recipients who are not bums is abominable.

the scope of government waste and inefficiency is indeed galling, but the lie that privatization is always the sterling perfect solution is randian ideology, not fact.

in the medical industry (industry?) i have to hink about all the money wasted on

a) ceo salaries and benefits

b) politician purchasing (lobbying and campaign finance)

c) advertising and marketing for prescription drugs (an attempt to scare hypochondriacs into harrassing their doctors, who's professional duty is to stay up to date on the latest pharmacological developments?) and health insurance companies...

tell me...would a public based health system really waste so much money compared to the parasitical situation we have now?

Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/22/2007 @ 3:27pm
MBB and Chimi -

You will be happy to hear that Michael Moore has apparently taken your advice . . . I just saw that he has lost about 30 lbs. since finishing the film.

Posted by Hman23 at 06/22/2007 @ 3:31pm
Posted by MASK 06/22/2007 @ 3:13pm

Blah blah blah.

Kid falls off his bike in OhLetsSay Holland and he breaks his ass, very complicated fall.

Question (for DARIN too): Will it ruin the family financially because the care has been RATIONED by price mechanisms mediated through private sector bureaucartic insurance schemes? Is it EVEN A QUESTION that would be asked in that context of ass broken in Holland? Would there be any issue at all, versus OhLetsSay in Gary, Indiana or Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania (just to name too pretty deprived places)?

Yup it is a "Yes!" or "No!" question, correspondingly clear answers from the pompous and righteous will suffice.

"I'm right, you're wrong, and that is all" --- Cosmic Raygun.

No need to say I made a mistake in judgment --- unless I actaully did.

And you STILL need a hobby, MASK.

Posted by Glenn Lemon at 06/22/2007 @ 3:34pm
Posted by HMAN23 06/22/2007 @ 3:31pm | ignore this person

Good for him. I mean, for a fleshy creature such as MM to do a film on health care is no better than Rob Reiner trying to recruit more members for Gold's Gym. It's a shame it takes some people so long to snap out of it. Just as Gary Busey needed a near-fatal motorcycle crash to teach him it's smart to use a helmet, too many Americans wait until a heart attack to quit smoking or to stop using their bodies as garbage disposals...

Posted by chimichenga at 06/22/2007 @ 3:37pm
tell me...would a public based health system really waste so much money compared to the parasitical situation we have now?

Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 06/22/2007 @ 3:27pm

So basically your premise is, you don't care if a public-based health care system is AS wasteful (maybe even more) than the "parasitical" situation we have now.

Ok....let's nationalize everything then. Seriously, you can apply your rationale to any prodcut or service offered. They all have CEOs, almost all try to influence politics, and almost all use advertising.

So....why stop at the "medical industry"?....I mean it...why?

Posted by Mask at 06/22/2007 @ 3:41pm
And you STILL need a hobby, MASK.

Posted by GLENN LEMON 06/22/2007 @ 3:34pm

And you need to develop a LITTLE bit of humility, GLENN.

You asked MBB to "prove something". I provided proof from an independent medical journal study. You nitpicked about the subjects of the poll. Then discovered a line you mis-read or missed entirely...then decided to nitpick the terms of the study.

Like most "progressives", your ego could fill the Grand Canyon, if not the Valles Marineris (look it up). Rather than admit an error (especially in a post to a hard-line partisan opponent like MBB...or even a soft-line opponent such as myself)...you devolve into some meaningless rant and "I'm not being defensive, YOU're being defensive" Nathan Thurm [en.wikipedia.org] routine (I'll link you that one).

Posted by Mask at 06/22/2007 @ 3:49pm
Sorry GLENN, realize that after failing to nitpick the data, you're now forced to nitpick the "terms"

My last post of the day (that phrase usually sets off a flurry of MASK imbibing form the FLASK - watch and see!) ...

But I will do the service of functioning as the windtalker and translator of a vintage specimen of FLASKIAN warmed-over bullshit under glass that he has served up above.

When asked to explain what the study he cited actually says in clear terms -- and we will put aside why it is the definitive study of anything -- FLASK clumsily lurches away from the question of what he cited actually says as ... nitpicking. We are informed that the self-evident must be self-evident, because it is.

Those of us who suspect that FLASK did not READ what he pasted or that he does not possess command over what it says have a few thoughts about this limp linguistic device -- and by extension about the FLASK brandname that arrogates to itself an absolute iconism of Truth of which question must not be asked (like how water becomes wine by speaking words over it) as to ask questions like "what does the post in your name say?" would interupt the FLASKIAN monologue ...

Posted by Glenn Lemon at 06/22/2007 @ 3:53pm
Posted by MASK 06/22/2007 @ 3:41pm

i don't think a public health system is intrinsically as wasteful or more wasteful than the private system. if mismanaged it could be far worse. but the horror stories propagated by objectivists concerning the european/canadian/australian/costa rican style systems are self serving, exagerated, and propagandistic.

i'm all for business, and when proven superior to public, as it is in most endeavors, fine.

but to blanketely, dogmatically, adhere to a "private ALWAYS better - gubbament ALWAYS bad" philosophy is simply not based on observable facts.

neither is the opposite, by the way, obviously.

Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/22/2007 @ 3:55pm
What MASK, not gonna call me a nazi today?

Debate surrounds end-of-life health care costs http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/2006-10-18-end-of-life-c osts_x.htm

Look at all of these nazis in Oregan. Maybe we should liberate them?

By Julie Appleby, USA TODAY

If you are dying in Miami, the last six months of your life might well look like this: You'll see doctors, mostly specialists, 46 times; spend more than six days in an intensive care unit and stand a 27% chance of dying in a hospital ICU. The tab for your doctor and hospital care will run just over $23,000. But spend those last six months in Portland, Ore., and you'll go to the doctor 18 times, half of those visits with your primary care doctor, spend one day in intensive care and stand a 13% chance of dying in an ICU. You'll likely die at home, with the support of a hospice program. Total tab: slightly more than $14,000.

Researchers at the Dartmouth Atlas Project, a program at the Dartmouth Medical School that evaluates variation in medical care, analyzed Medicare data on patients with chronic illnesses to develop those statistics, showing that it costs far more to die in some parts of the country than in others.

But experts on the end-of-life care say one main reason for the vast difference between the two cities may be that in Oregon, doctors, or staff at hospitals and hospices, encourage patients with life-threatening illnesses to talk about the end of life, what kind of medical care they want and where they want to die. The state has a history of such debate: Oregon residents have long supported palliative care, a term usually used to describe medical care for the terminally ill that focuses more on comfort treatments than cures. And, in 1994, voters there became the first in the nation to approve doctor-assisted suicide, a referendum signed into law in 1998.

"We have fewer hospitals and ICU beds than Miami does and, yes, that's a factor. But making a plan and how everyone supports you to have that plan is what makes the difference," says Susan Tolle, a medical doctor and director of the Center for Ethics in Health Care at Oregon Health & Science University.

The ways people die in Portland and Miami illustrate the vast variation in what is done at the end of life in America.

Across the nation, some patients spend much of their final weeks seeing specialists, having tests, trying new drugs. Many die attached to machines, such as ventilators, in hospitals.

For some patients, that's exactly the right care. Doing everything that can be done to save an 18-year-old motorcycle-crash victim makes sense. But what about an 85-year-old with heart failure, diabetes and cancer? Do you continue aggressive chemotherapy?

Then the answers are not so clear-cut.

Complicating matters is that medicine often doesn't know what the most effective treatments are. And doctors are trained to save lives. As a result, some patients may be pushed into more than they want by a medical system that values doing something over doing nothing, even when futile.

"One of the things that frustrates us all is to see care being provided in an absolutely futile situation ... and doctors and hospitals are not accountable but are also being rewarded (financially) for that (futile care)," says John Santa, medical director for the Center for Evidence-Based Policy in Portland.

Posted by crabwalk at 06/22/2007 @ 4:05pm
MASK, you can keep pulling out my post, but you have yet to address the issue. I understand you don't get it, so what is your point, other than to be your usual asinine self?

Posted by crabwalk at 06/22/2007 @ 4:08pm
And you STILL need a hobby, MASK.

Posted by GLENN LEMON 06/22/2007 @ 3:34pm |

what do you think this is, glenn? lol. not the worst hobby...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/22/2007 @ 4:10pm
Posted by GLENN LEMON 06/22/2007 @ 3:53pm

Hopefully my last GLENN post....

Well, then GLEN if that's true, it should have been EASY for you to refute that study by the JGIM and prove that they were wrong and you were right and "no rationing occurs in rich nations".....oddly, you didn't, merely decided to come after me with various nonsensical retorts.

Of course somebody not having knowledge about the subject that they are talking about, yet still commenting on it is a terrible thing....

example--

"I am also not convinced that they pass muster (kind of like rightwing hystericism over Wellstone's "Fascist Rally" funeral, an invention of the right's echoing hype machine."---Posted by GLENN LEMON 05/21/2007 @ 12:40pm Who's Afraid of Jimmy Carter John Nichols

Now, as somebody who knows that the "Wellstone's 'Fascist Rally' funeral" was an invention of the right's echoing hype machine.....GLENN would obviously know the particulars of that incident and what ONE speaker's participation in it set off a good deal of the outrage. That being Rick Kahn, Paul Wellstone's treasurer and friend.....

"Let us just take the Gore part, partly becuase I don't know who the fuck Rick Kahn is: "----Posted by GLENN LEMON 05/22/2007 @ 10:05am --Call to Impeach Gonzales John Nichols

(my bolds of course)

Posted by Mask at 06/22/2007 @ 4:11pm
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 06/22/2007 @ 3:55pm

IBBLE, I'm not saying you are a "gubbment is always BEST" type either. But your rationale for federalizing the "medical industry" listed 3 items, ALL of which could be applied to private sector industries.

So I ask....what DON'T you want nationalized if those are your rationales?

For instance, the Auto Industry pays out millions to CEOs, "buys influence" in Congress, and advertises a LOT....should we nationalize it, especially in light of its monetary failures, job losses, and lack of effort on global climate change?

Posted by Mask at 06/22/2007 @ 4:14pm
Posted by CRABWALK 06/22/2007 @ 4:08pm

CRAB, I pulled out your post to show to GLENN that there were those on "his side" (like yourself) who SUPPORT health care rationing (much to the detriment of Granny Crab)....while he was arguing that no such rationing EXISTED in "rich nations" with universal health care.

So, perhaps you should take it up with GLENN and explain to him how rationing is NEEDED for the system to work.

Posted by Mask at 06/22/2007 @ 4:17pm
There will always be rationing. It is not that I support it, it just is. If you live in a rural area, you get rationed healthcare. If you don't have insurance you are rationed.

What I support is the most efficient use of our limited resources. That will include rationing of some sort, but I think it will more often be rationing because the procedure is not effective, or the use of that procedure would be better used on an 18 year old, rather than a 95 year old with heart disease, diabetes, etc.

And I don't think that is why you continue to pull out that post.

Posted by crabwalk at 06/22/2007 @ 4:29pm
Posted by MASK 06/22/2007 @ 4:14pm

i know MASK...ur a good guy, you just know my argument style is chock full of subtle to not so subtle below the belt punches sometimes...

but good question...

life and death deals in which excessive greed can have catastrophic individual and structural consequences are (imnsho) prime candidates for public sector endeavors...military, police, PRISONS, health care, welfare, disaster relief...

with healthcare, perhaps some sort of co-op style organization or government corporation situation might in fact be better than complete public control and more amenable to the american business acumen and character. i also think that public utilities might be better served by co-ops and such...

ie - i don't trust the profit motive to deliver essential/semi-essential services that are easily corrupted by the profit motive.

i don't support any governmental involvement in manufacturing and most non-essential services that i can think of. i never say never, since indevidual circumstances can always trump general truths. for instance, if our manufacturing base were to become so feeble as to endanger our ability to defend ourselves and we were threatened by suppliers of what we need, who knows?

nor am i adverse to an occasional gubbament bailout when it comes to vital industries...occasional and vital being key here...

i believe that a good, progressive corporate tax code would go a long way toward alleviating many absurdities in the corporate world and do so not through penalizing bad behavior but more by rewarding good behavior.

Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/22/2007 @ 4:50pm
And I don't think that is why you continue to pull out that post.

Posted by CRABWALK 06/22/2007 @ 4:29pm

Well, I also am REAL curious if you've made that opinion known to "Granny CRAB" or whatever elderly relative you might have....heheh!

Posted by Mask at 06/22/2007 @ 4:56pm
ie - i don't trust the profit motive to deliver essential/semi-essential services that are easily corrupted by the profit motive.

Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 06/22/2007 @ 4:50pm

Cool....now, name ALL the "essential/semi-essential services" that are involved in American economics. Then we'll know what you would favor nationalizing.

Or, if easier, what are "non-essential services" that you would leave alone.

Whichever list is smaller....heheh!

Posted by Mask at 06/22/2007 @ 4:59pm
i also think that if the gubbament were to take a big stick to the private insurance industry and beat them senseless, perhaps it COULD function efficiently, profitably and compassionately...perhaps not...

like here's an idea that involves no gubbament at all. employee leasing, allowing low paid individuals to afford private insurance and other benefits as a result of the leveraging power of the leasing companies vis-a-vis the insurance companies. still, unless gubbament (the regulatory entity which in a perfect world functions to enforce commonly accepted standards) is ready to beat severely with its big stick when needed...useless.

in fact, the only way the current private health care system can work is if the ceo's become scared shitless they will be beaten silly if they continue their current practices. as they should be because they have become evil parasites.

but in order for anything like this to be truly effective...effective campaign finance reform is essential because as long as the ceo's can buy and sell politicians, is all moot.

so - in absence of real campaign finance reform i favor mainly public control of healthcare. with some, perhaps alternative market based solutions would work.

Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/22/2007 @ 5:02pm
now, name ALL the "essential/semi-essential services" that are involved in American economics.

Posted by MASK 06/22/2007 @ 4:59pm

i pretty much did...off the top of my head. you know, i throw the moral high ground low blows in my argument as well as baiting and beating, but you consistently pull the "fallacy of absolutes" low blow...lol. as well as some baiting and beating...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/22/2007 @ 5:06pm
Whether it's Limbaugh or Moore you know it's dishonest propaganda.

Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 06/22/2007 @ 10:00am

Bullshit. Limpdick is a propagandist, pure and simple. Moore is doing what is called "Investigative Journalism". You just can't stand the truths he points out.

The fault is with you.

Posted by Dr Decibels at 06/22/2007 @ 6:22pm
Posted by DR DECIBELS 06/22/2007 @ 6:22pm

you know, moore aint perfect. he does inject a little ideology in his stuff, but it ain't the ideology that pisses off limpdicks...its the investigative journalism. har har har!

Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/22/2007 @ 6:56pm
i'm interested in seeing the film. have all the folks here checked it out?

knowing michael moore's shtick (black humor vs. serious issues, pushing buttons and opening dialogue) and reading the overwhelmingly positive reviews (check out rottentomatoes.com), i think the film will be a postive.

i mean, why not bring up the question? it might be a little rude, but isnt it valid? Why shouldn't america want to be number one? why shouldnt we be smart enough to have a strong economy AND be number one in health care? why shouldnt we have the strength of our convictions, and still help everyone around us?

of course, those of us who will never need healthcare should feel free to throw the first stones.

Posted by meowdy at 06/22/2007 @ 8:24pm
Moore an investigative journalist?

funniest thing all day.

Posted by crabwalk at 06/22/2007 @ 8:25pm
Posted by MEOWDY 06/22/2007 @ 8:24pm

i agree...i know the issues already, and i like tubby, and generally trust him...so i can wait to see it on tv. no big special effects...

who you like for pres? i'm between obama and edwards (would love to see a squeeky clean black/white ken doll charisma bomb go up against giuliani, thompson, whoever. i think they could pull off miracles in terms of healthcare and other progressive issues if elected. and i dont care which gets to drive and which gets shotgun, you know?

i respect hillary, but like most of my ethno-gender-marital status, dislike her. not sure i trust her either...been hangin with satan himself, murdoch.

Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/22/2007 @ 8:43pm
Well, as Prof. Farnsworth would say....Good news, everyone...

LA Times

WASHINGTON -- With the release of Michael Moore's "Sicko," a movie once again is adding sizzle to an issue that's a high priority for liberal politicians -- this time comprehensive health insurance for all. But unlike Al Gore's film on global warming, which helped rally support on an equally controversial problem, "Sicko" is creating an awkward situation for the leading Democratic presidential candidates.

Rejecting Moore's prescription on healthcare could alienate liberal activists, who will play a big role in choosing the party's next standard-bearer. However, his proposal -- wiping out private health insurance and replacing it with a massive federal program -- could be political poison with the larger electorate.

At a special screening in Washington this week, politicians, lobbyists, media pooh-bahs and policy junkies flocked to see Moore's film. And its slashing demand for action on an issue that voters care deeply about, and Democrats hope to capitalize on, generated plenty of buzz. Moore hopes that, after its general release June 29, "Sicko" will exert significant influence on the presidential campaign.

Instead of greeting the film with hosannas or challenging it head-on, however, the leading Democratic presidential candidates have sidestepped direct comment on Moore's proposals.

Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois and former Sen. John Edwards of South Carolina all have staked out positions sharply at odds with Moore's approach. But none of them is eager to have that fact dragged into the spotlight.

If Moore's fire-breathing proposal catches on among party activists, who tend to be suspicious of the private sector and supportive of direct government action, the candidates' pragmatic, consensus-seeking ideas could look like weak-kneed temporizing -- much the way their rejection of an immediate pullout from Iraq has drawn heated criticism from antiwar activists.

In "Sicko," the filmmaker calls for abolishing the insurance industry, putting a tight regulatory collar on pharmaceutical companies and embracing a Canadian-style government-run system.

Advocacy groups are already planning to use the film to pressure the Democratic hopefuls.

"The candidates haven't sensed the political fever in this country that fundamental change is called for in the healthcare system," said Rose Ann DeMoro, executive director of the California Nurses Assn. "What we are going to do is call on the candidates to reconsider their positions."

Stoking the passions of rank-and-file Democrats for a government takeover of the healthcare system amounts to political folly, respond some liberal veterans of Washington's healthcare battles.

"To presume that the private sector is going to sit idly by to see the destruction of private coverage I think is a misreading of reality," said Ron Pollack of the advocacy group Families USA. "I think the presidential candidates understand that if healthcare reform is going to have a chance of success, it will require bipartisanship and a balance of public and private coverage. It cannot be the triumph of one ideology over the other."

www.latimes.com

Posted by Mask at 06/22/2007 @ 10:08pm
Commentary by Paul Mirengoff at Power Line.....on a possible "new era of large-scale social experimentation".....universal health care certainly will be large-scale.....:

Reflections on an alleged end of an era

E.J. Dionne argues that the "center" in American politics is moving towards the left. I think he's correct,.....

But what I want to comment about is Dionne's claim, uttered often now by others on the left as well, that we are witnessing a "discrediting of the conservative era." Any move away from a set of policies can be called a "discrediting" in the weak sense.....But does....discredit the "conservative era" at a more meaningful level?

I assume that the era of which Dionne speaks begins in 1981 and runs through the present. During this period we had eight years of a true conservative presidency, twelve years of center-right presidencies, and eight years of a nominally liberal presidency during which nothing very liberal occurred in the realm of domestic policy. By modern historical standards, it may be fair to call this a conservative era.

How has the nation fared during this era?.....seems clear enough that the economy has thrived. Where previously the economy grew roughly two out of every three quarters, from 1981 forward it grew in more than four out of every five. Moreover, during the conservative era, the U.S. became and remained the world's only superpower. And far fewer lives were lost in wars during this time than durng the previous 25 year periods dating back to the beginning of the 20th century.

But to understand the real success of the conservative era, one must focus on the state of America during the 1970s. The best study I know of on this subject is David Frum's under-appreciated book How We Got Here: The 70's......

Why did things spin so close to out-of-control during the 70s?...At one level, the answer seems plainly to lie in excessive social experimentation and engineering. The conservative era, to oversimplfy, reined in such adventures, which is what one would expect out of a conservative era.

It's possible, though far from clear, that we're poised to embark on a new era of large-scale social experimentation. If so, we can only hope that things will work out better than they did in the 1970s. In any event, I'm grateful that I was able to live essentially all of my productive life so far, and to raise my family, in stable prosperous times during which the pace of social experimentation decelerated sharply. Posted by Paul at 04:21 PM

----------------------------------------------

HAPPY ditto to Paul's final sentence!

Posted by Happy at 06/22/2007 @ 11:43pm
Your children will not be so fortunate. They are going to be paying your debt. The cons put off paying in their time.

Posted by crabwalk at 06/23/2007 @ 04:57am
Happy, Pauls analysis is way over simplified and ignores more than I can go into now. But, ig ignorance makes you happy...

Posted by crabwalk at 06/23/2007 @ 05:01am
and ig spelling counts....

Posted by crabwalk at 06/23/2007 @ 05:02am
Michael Moore for President.

Posted by FRANKGRITS 06/22/2007 @ 11:17pm

Uh, FRANK...aren't you pulling for somebody else for President?

Somebody that, Mikey took a few pokes at for being in the pocket of the health care industry???

Posted by Mask at 06/23/2007 @ 07:24am
Posted by MASK 06/23/2007 @ 07:24am

hey - i know you've seen a few simpson's in your time. remember the one where the itchy and scrathcy toon get yanked over a lawsuit and crusty puts on wierd old eastern european cartoons? "worker and parasite" lol...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/23/2007 @ 07:54am
I am still waiting for someone to answer the following question on health care in the US.. The US has the best heallth care in the world, but the worst delivery system..

How can we save the system from beaurocrats like the fed system(unionised immoveable structure) and still keep the quality of care high?

Can any of the loons here, and I must insist on answers from those working, have worked for a large corporation or entity that has a beaurocratic structure,or in the medical field...

what is it about the govt that makes you think these guys can run a health care system without killing it off and reducing it down to the lowest common denominator for all of customers(victims)? What evidence is out there of a big govt program that you would like to compare the health care system after as a model of success?

What group would you feel safe in having them attend the health and welfare of your wife and children...that you would entrust all in their hands?

I see the lawyers as the only group getting rich off the system of govt run ........

Posted by john maasch at 06/23/2007 @ 10:30am
OH.....the Post Office, Medicaid and SS, I would hope none here see these as models of success...if so, ...well, ...don't get sick.

Posted by john maasch at 06/23/2007 @ 10:32am
Feel better?

Posted by FRANKGRITS 06/23/2007 @ 09:23am

Not really, FRANK, cuz I'm still curious how you resolve how BOTH Mike AND Hillary can be right, when Mike takes on HRC...

"He notes that Senator Hillary Clinton ☼, once the scourge of the health care industry, has become a top recipient of contributions from health care firms."

Somebody has to be wrong? Is is Moore in his "mistaken" assessment of Her Nibs selling out to the health care firms? Or is it Hillary...in selling out to the health care firms?

heheh

Posted by Mask at 06/23/2007 @ 11:00am
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 06/23/2007 @ 07:54am

The old Wikipedia comes through for us again! [en.wikipedia.org]

Posted by Mask at 06/23/2007 @ 11:03am
I see the lawyers as the only group getting rich off the system of govt run ........

Posted by JOHN MAASCH 06/23/2007 @ 10:30am | ignore this person

so, lawyers getting rich is a problem. you getting rich is a blessing. did I get that right?

Posted by johannesrolf at 06/23/2007 @ 11:26am
Broken Arm: the person needs medical attention. Why not help?

Broken Leg: the person needs medical attention. Why not help?

Conservatives: "It wont be just broken arms and legs. 1st it will be just arms and legs. Then the government will start giving away free cosmetic surgery"

As though people needing medical attention are some pre-emptive threat, and we have to draw a line in the sand.

Conservatives, what is so terrible, so communist, so terrible, about just giving someone medical attention that they need.

Posted by conshame at 06/23/2007 @ 12:13pm
"If someone needs medical attention, give it to them"....well, first we do that NOW. It's called an "emergency room" and by law they cannot turn away anybody.

But let's go further...if someone "needs" a nose job, do we give it to them?

Posted by MASK 06/22/2007 @ 10:02am | ignore this person

Mask is a liar. What about the guy in Michael Moore's movie SICKO, who was forced to choose which finger to re-attach, because he only had 12,000.00 to spend? Was the hospital forced to re-attach both fingers in the emergency room. All Conservatives lie.

Posted by conshame at 06/23/2007 @ 12:20pm
Mask is a liar.

The emergency room did NOT re-attach both fingers for the guy in Michael Moore's movie SICKO. They re-attached 1 of them. And ONLY because he paid them $12,000, Mask.

How can people just outright lie. NO, emergency rooms are not required to re-attach fingers that someone needs re-attached. Liar.

Posted by conshame at 06/23/2007 @ 12:23pm
Emergency rooms are not required to re-attach 2 fingers that someone NEEDS re-attached. If you want 1 re-attached, it's 12,000 - if you want the other re-attached, it's another 60,000 $, Mask, you liar. Mask, you liar. Mask is a liar. Conservatives lie.

Posted by conshame at 06/23/2007 @ 12:24pm
Look, someone NEEDS 2 FINGERS RE-ATTACHED.

WHY is it so terrible, so horrible, to just give them medical attention. Why are you conservatives so damn concerned that one day the government might get out of control, and give people cosmetic surgery. Why? Why? Why are you obsessed? Why? What is wrong with your morality?

Posted by conshame at 06/23/2007 @ 12:26pm
Someone needs 2 fingers re-attached. Needs. Not cosmetic. Not trivial. Needs. No the emergency room is not "required" to re-attach them both. Just watch Michael Moore's movie - you'll see. And it could be someone you know or love.

Posted by conshame at 06/23/2007 @ 12:28pm
2 fingers re-attached, IS A NEED, not cosmetic. It shouldnt come down to whether you have 10,000 but not 12,000, whether you have $500 but not $75,000. NO, the emergency room is not "required" to give you what you NEED.

Posted by conshame at 06/23/2007 @ 12:29pm
And finally, Big Billion Dick Cheney, and the idiot George Bush, and their wife and kids, get FREE PREMIUM (thats cosmetics included) health care for life - paid for by YOU.

Posted by conshame at 06/23/2007 @ 12:34pm
"so, lawyers getting rich is a problem. you getting rich is a blessing. did I get that right?

Posted by JOHANNESROLF 06/23/2007 @ 11:26am

No, my getting rich is great...lawyers getting rich is great..everyone getting rich is great....taking apart the health care system to get rich is bad.

Posted by john maasch at 06/23/2007 @ 12:47pm
"Conservatives, what is so terrible, so communist, so terrible, about just giving someone medical attention that they need.

Posted by CONSHAME 06/23/2007 @ 12:13pm

Nothing is wrong, communist or terrible to give help...now, can we take 80% of your salary(assuming you earn one) to help all these people? And if you don't want to give that much, then you are a selfish con.

CONSHAME=SELFISH

If someone made me choose between which finger, I would respond with how much shall I you sue and this place for..$5 million or $ 10 million...if you believe in Michael Moore, then you can't dump on people who believe in Rush Limbaugh..they are both sides of the same coin..namely ENTERTAINMENT FOR PROFIT.

CONSHAME=FRAUD CONSHAME=SHAME CONSHAME=LOON

Posted by john maasch at 06/23/2007 @ 12:52pm
CONSHAME= LIAR

Say, this simple math is fun...everyone cam do it with out thinking...very progressive.

Posted by john maasch at 06/23/2007 @ 12:54pm
John Maasch, so you admit then, that the emergency room was not "required" to re-attach the guy's 2 fingers.

Look at what you support John Maasch. That man would have his 2 fingers, but sadly people like you carried the majority, and he had to pay 12,000$ to have just 1 of his fingers re-attached.

Posted by conshame at 06/23/2007 @ 1:01pm
If that man didn't have $12,000 - he wouldnt have had either of his fingers re-attached. The "emergency" room was NOT "required" to give the man what he needed - that is policy.

It is revolting how Conservatives LIE, all the time, claiming that "emergency rooms are required", oh, BS!~@!!!!!

Posted by conshame at 06/23/2007 @ 1:03pm
Maasch, a beginners lesson for you.

Conservatives: WRONG on health care

See if you can match that, Maasch. "Liberals wrong on health care?" I DONT THINK SO, Maasch.

Posted by conshame at 06/23/2007 @ 1:06pm
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 06/23/2007 @ 12:47pm | ignore this person

the rich are the most fortunate of people.

they have the wannabe rich to carry their water for them.

together they perpetuate the myth of the rich as victims.

cry me a river

Posted by johannesrolf at 06/23/2007 @ 2:05pm
Mask,

I assume you've noticed that none of these Universal Free Healthcare proponents has commented on the LA Times article showing that none of the leading Dem candidates supports Moore's proposals.

Hmmm, could it be liberal denial? maybe just an oversight? (LOL)

Posted by antiliberal at 06/23/2007 @ 2:12pm
ANTILIBERAL....nor likely to.

Moore and the "total Federally controlled health care, put the Insurance Guys out of business" types KNOW they're not going to get that Hour 1, Day 1 from even an Edwards Administration.

The smarter ones know that it'll be INCREMENTALISM that wins the day for them. First it'll be some minor plan to cover the "48 million uninsured" (is that the new number?..hmm)...then that won't be enough, and it'll be a tax on premium health insurance, SUPPOSEDLY to fund health care for the poor ("why shouldn't Big Insurance 'help' those it refuses to cover")....once Big Insurance gets so priced-out (due to high taxes) and demand for a HEALTHY and MIDDLE CLASS pool of insurees is needed....we'll get "Medicare for all" and Big Insurance will go the way I predicted....a few companies survive providing insurance to Ms vanden Heuvel and Michael Moore to go to "private spas" where the good drugs, good doctors, and timely treatment is available.

Posted by Mask at 06/23/2007 @ 2:45pm
CONSHAME....when did you see "Sicko", if I may ask?

Posted by Mask at 06/23/2007 @ 2:45pm
What happened to the `Kermit does DC' gig by....????....Help me out HMAN,.....MAX FEATHERSTONE????!!!!!

Posted by Happy at 06/23/2007 @ 4:02pm
No observer with any serious smarts should have assumed Bloomberg's leaving the GOP as equal to a "serious flirtation with an independent run"! I guess this means, in my book, KVH has something less-than-serious "smarts"! Seriously!!! LOL.....

Posted by HAPPY 06/20/2007 @ 2:55pm (from KVH thread opining on Bloomberg's getting "serious" on an independent Run)

---------------------------------------------------------------

Seems The Nation's Best (brain) seriously agrees w/me.....Here's what David posted at his blog yesterday, 6/22/07, 2 days AFTER the HAPPY "resident genius" (that's per NEW DAWN) rebutted KVH.....

---------------------------------------------------------------

June 22, 2007

Bloomberg: MIA in Iraq

Michael Bloomberg appears to be enjoying the attention he has received since registering as an independent with the New York Board of Elections. He spent the day after his decision coyly declining to answer whether he will run for president as an independent. And political pundits have gone crazy speculating about a Bloomberg bid and wondering which party it might hurt.

My hunch is that Bloomberg is pulling a head-fake. Is this smart-money businessman-turned-pol truly willing to throw $100 million or more down the tubes for a presidential bid with little chance of success? But let's say he's serious--or semiserious. Then we--and Bloomberg--should cut to the chase: What would he do about Iraq?......

Posted by David Corn at 12:54 PM

Posted by Happy at 06/23/2007 @ 4:37pm
As far as I ever was aware, emergency rooms are only required to give life saving treatments. i.e. They have to stop the bleeding, so you won't die. But, they don't have to re-attach anything.

Just stabilize and release.

Eric

Posted by Malcontent at 06/23/2007 @ 4:41pm
Posted by HAPPY 06/23/2007 @ 4:37pm

Did I just read HAPPY right? He quotes himself and then agrees? But it gets better. He then calls Corn The Nation's best brain. This is the guy who takes issue with every post Corn makes as too librul. I want what he's smoking.

Posted by NeilSagan at 06/24/2007 @ 12:05am
Posted by MASK 06/23/2007 @ 11:03am |

exactly! "what the hell was that?"

Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/24/2007 @ 03:11am
No observer with any serious smarts should have assumed Bloomberg's leaving the GOP as equal to a "serious flirtation with an independent run"! I guess this means, in my book, KVH has something less-than-serious "smarts"! Seriously!!! LOL.....

Posted by HAPPY 06/20/2007 @ 2:55pm (from KVH thread opining on Bloomberg's getting "serious" on an independent Run)

---------------------------------------------------------------

Seems The Nation's Best (brain) seriously agrees w/me.....Here's what David posted at his blog yesterday, 6/22/07, 2 days AFTER the HAPPY "resident genius" (that's per NEW DAWN) rebutted KVH.....

---------------------------------------------------------------

June 22, 2007

Bloomberg: MIA in Iraq

Michael Bloomberg appears to be enjoying the attention he has received since registering as an independent with the New York Board of Elections. He spent the day after his decision coyly declining to answer whether he will run for president as an independent. And political pundits have gone crazy speculating about a Bloomberg bid and wondering which party it might hurt.

My hunch is that Bloomberg is pulling a head-fake. Is this smart-money businessman-turned-pol truly willing to throw $100 million or more down the tubes for a presidential bid with little chance of success? But let's say he's serious--or semiserious. Then we--and Bloomberg--should cut to the chase: What would he do about Iraq?......

Posted by David Corn at 12:54 PM

Posted by HAPPY 06/23/2007 @ 4:37pm

Nice job of answering my questions, Happy - no, wait, you didn't do that at all - you just obliquely referred to my name and my post, but were too chickenshit to actually paste it because it would show that you answered none of my questions.

Answer my questions if you're going to refer to me, or stop riding my coattails.

Here, I'll even do you the kindness of reposting my questions so you don't have to bother going back to look them up.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Please explain to the board, enlightened one laughing at the ignorance of others...

Exactly why Bloomberg felt it necessary to leave the GOP, and exactly what precludes him from taking a run at the presidency.

Afterwards, explain why it is not news that he has chosen to shed himself of his albatross party exactly when a presidential race is heating up. Please compare and contrast varying speculations as to his motives. Provide detailed examples of your arguments.

Or is it really that simple to you? Anyone who speculates that abandoning one's party during a presidential season (albeit an early one) might have deeper implications is of "less-than-serious smarts"? Seems to me that anyone who dismisses (or one who, ostrich-like, doesn't even comprehend) the implications is the one who is less-than-seriously smart. But hey, that's just me.

You like to write as though you are the resident genius, Happy (an obnoxious, narcissistic fault you share with many others here, on both sides), while you ha-ha-ha at others who you think just don't "get it". But I call "overblown bullshit rhetoric".

Why exactly is someone who assumes that Bloomberg's abandonment of his party at this juncture is a sign of his interest in the presidency less smart than anyone else?

Please explain yourself in detail for us slow people. I would really appreciate it, and I fully expect your retort to be fascinating and illuminating.

If it isn't, I expect you to admit that you amount to only blather and insipid "humor" that only you find amusing.

Posted by NEW DAWN 06/20/2007 @ 9:57pm

Posted by New Dawn at 06/24/2007 @ 2:58pm
Posted by NEW DAWN 06/24/2007 @ 2:58pm

The central theme of your questions of his `abandoning' the GOP is that he was "wedded" to it in the first place!

You may not know, Bloomberg was never a committed GOP! Lifelong Dem until NYC mayoral run! A brilliant strategic stunt, I might add! Now that he has got solid approval (ie, track record as mayor), he doesn't need any party labels and simply chucked the GOP label and created some `hype' through folks like KVH. Good for him! I see nothing but smartness befitting a multi-billionaire!

I stated why I DON'T think Bloomberg will run.....or if he does run (but not to the end to win), it will be for some of the same reasons Ralph Nader's (I cited article) may run......David Corn also overlapped some of the reasons I said Bloomberg WON'T run. You need to read better!

I'm NOT going to go into any more details since, to me, IT IS RATHER SIMPLE and pointless to go into what maybe in his mind! What use is `detailed' speculations on my genius part.....while I wouldn't mind doing it, somebody better pay me to do it! I don't need to prove a negative, you need to support your reasons (and help KVH) as to a positive: Bloomberg WILL or is LIKELY TO RUN!

Posted by Happy at 06/24/2007 @ 3:27pm
....."humor" that only you find amusing.

Posted by NEW DAWN 06/20/2007 @ 9:57pm

Posted by NEW DAWN 06/24/2007 @ 2:58pm

A blogger named HAPPY has to be amusing, at a minimum, to self....otherwise, it would be????? False labeling!

Interesting! Your Dawn-to-Dawn is glacial, took 4 days! LOL!

Posted by Happy at 06/24/2007 @ 3:37pm
The posts below are from the Bloomberg thread:

By JILL GARDINER Staff Reporter of the Sun May 24, 2007

Mayor Bloomberg would have more support from New York City voters in a bid to become governor than to become president.

A poll released yesterday by Quinnipiac University found that 60% of New Yorkers surveyed would be likely to vote for Mr. Bloomberg if he runs for governor, while 37% would vote for him for president.

While Mr. Bloomberg has denied that he has any interest in running for either office, political scientists say the polls highlights two important points. One is how daunting it would be to run for president as an independent. The other is that his strong support for a job now held by Governor Spitzer could give Mr. Bloomberg a leg up in dealings with the state.

If recent polls show he can't even carry NY in a presidential race, why run?

Posted by METTEYYA 06/22/2007 @ 12:26am | ignore this person

Metteyya,

Your reservations are not uncommon. When he first started running for mayor of NYC I was not at all impressed with him. For starters he ran on a platform of overhauling education....but at the time education was firmly in the hands of the board of regents so it almost sounded like he was running for the wrong job.

However, Bloomberg has done an incredibly good job of running New York City. The thing that I like most about him, is that as far as I can tell, there is absolutely no nonsense and no gimmicks with his budgets. Gulliani on the the other hand was a very gimmicky budget producer and the cost of those gimmicks were absorbed into Bloomberg budgets.

The reason he went Republican (switching from Dem) to be mayor of NYC was because he didn't have a chance of winning a Dem nomination. The Dem party of NYC is way off to the left, and frankly very corrupt (think Dinkins). Left wing idealists and theives are not exactly going to mesh with a self made billionaire that doesn't even take a paycheck from the city!

Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 06/22/2007 @ 12:27pm | ignore this person

Bloomberg has done an incredibly good job of running New York City

Even if he has done the best job one could do at running NYC, this does not qualify him to run the "entire" country, which has more than half of its population living in rural and semi-rural areas with their own set of unique problems that differ substantially from those in an urban environment.

Then there is this whole international arena in which Bloomberg really has no experience at all. Playing international financial markets as a financial investor does not prepare you for the diplomatic challenges of the day.

Also his very close ties to AIPAC (this is the only reason we are hearing about him in the mainstream press) means it is impossible for him to act as an honest broker in world affairs, and we will just get more of the same "Jewish foreign policy" that we have been getting from an AIPAC dominated Congress, which means more foot dragging in Iraq, delays in creating a two-state solution in Israel, and possibly an invasion of Iran. The world needs more of this kind of foreign policy like another whole in its shoe, so Bloomberg just isn't the right guy.

Posted by METTEYYA 06/24/2007 @ 1:40pm | ignore this person

I think Katrina said it best when she asked whether Bloomberg was just "ego tripping" in considering a presidential bid. This is exactly what it sounds like to me!

Posted by Metteyya at 06/24/2007 @ 6:03pm
Pew Research Center for the People & the Press Bloomberg Well Known, But of Limited Appeal for Now

by Michael Dimock and Shawn Neidorf June 20, 2007

Figure

Michael Bloomberg has created some excitement in the political world about a possible run for the presidency by dropping his Republican affiliation. But a recent nationwide Pew voter survey found that while the New York mayor is relatively well known, his appeal is very modest at this point.

Almost two-thirds of American voters (65%) know who Michael Bloomberg is � more than have heard of Mitt Romney (62%), Joe Biden (58%), Fred Thompson (51%) or Bill Richardson (48%). Overall, Bloomberg's visibility falls in the middle of the pack of presidential contenders � well below the current Democratic or Republican frontrunners.

But as the New York mayor reportedly considers an independent bid for the presidency, only 9% of voters who have heard of him say there's a good chance they'd cast a ballot for him.

Another 23% say there is some chance, but more than half of American voters � 56% � say there's no chance Bloomberg would get their vote.

Majorities of Republican, Democratic and independent voters who have heard of Bloomberg say there is no chance they'd vote for him, though he is somewhat more appealing to independents and Republicans than he is to Democrats.

As many as 38% of independent voters and 36% of Republican voters who have heard of Bloomberg say there is at least some chance they'd vote for him, compared to just 26% of Democratic voters. Figure

Bloomberg fares only slightly better in the Northeast, where 38% of voters who had heard of him also said there is some chance they'd cast a ballot for him. Somewhat fewer in the Midwest (31%) South (30%) and West (27%) see themselves backing Bloomberg, not because they flatly oppose him (there is no regional difference in the percent saying there is "no chance" they will back him) but because even those who have heard of Bloomberg in these areas have less of a sense of him.

The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press survey was conducted May 30 to June 3, 2007, among 1,503 adults. That includes 1,247 registered voters (margin of error, +/-3%), 847 of whom had heard of Bloomberg and were asked to rate the chances they would vote for him (margin of error, +/-4%).

Posted by Metteyya at 06/24/2007 @ 6:53pm
"Vanity of vanities, all is vanity" is an Earl of Oxford pearl, all here shouldn't shy from first acknowledging when sitting to opine. Anything less is contemptibly myopic, imho.

Posted by lewwelge at 06/24/2007 @ 8:21pm
If health insurance or a government run program were the answer to our healthcare crisis why are people with health insurance not getting better care? We already have universal healthcare with Medicare and the health of that population does not get better. Better health will begin to reign in costs which at the moment increase at a 10% rate annually. So the issues Moore and others are attempting to attack are the wrong issues. One of the better places to get to more unique and doable solutions is www.healthcaresoundoff.com. At least they are attempting to get to solutions that will work, not re-warming old discarded notions in a different form.

Posted by yrodder at 06/25/2007 @ 12:45pm
From the other "Sicko" thread....a question....or maybe an "Emperor has no clothes" moment---

What's interesting is all the CREDIT that Michael Moore is being given on "moving the debate on health care" when...

Moore has NEVER moved ANY debate, ever. Think about it.

Did "Roger & Me" reduce lay-offs in Detroit?....nope.

Did "Bowling for Columbine" change the political landscape on gun control?...nope. In fact it came out in 2002...while Columbine was in 1999 and the Fed and state gun laws that that gave rise to were passed in 2000. After 2002...nothing. In fact you had guys like Kerry pictured hunting geese in '04 and guys like Jim Webb running as "pro-gun Democrats" in '06.

"Farenheit 9/11" came out in June of 2004...right in the middle of the elections. Result?...Bush won by 3 million votes.

So, where is the evidence that "Sicko" will "move the debate on universal health care towards a single-payer plan"?!?!??!

Posted by Mask at 06/25/2007 @ 1:00pm
what you south of the border fail to understand about canada's health care system is that our government (aka big buisness) HAS BEEN LETTING THE SYSTEM DIE in order to enact a private HELLTH care system such as found in the US, thus enabling their rich insurance buddies to get richer (check out Ontario's car insurance rates)

god bless us all

Posted by frosty zoom at 06/25/2007 @ 2:40pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 06/25/2007 @ 2:40pm

What do YOU Canadians know about the Canada health care system....Michael Moore says it's great and he should know, he's been there a few times and selectively edited Canadians who love the system.

LOL!

Posted by Mask at 06/25/2007 @ 4:03pm
"If someone needs medical attention, give it to them"....well, first we do that NOW. It's called an "emergency room" and by law they cannot turn away anybody.

Actually, this isn't quite true. ER's are required to do an initial medical exam to determine if you have an emergent situation or are in labor. If they determine you have a true emergency, they are required to provide care to the point of stabilizing you so that you can either go home or be transferred to another facility. If you do not have an emergency, they don't have to do anything!

Posted by astrid2x at 06/26/2007 @ 03:48am
....."humor" that only you find amusing.

Posted by NEW DAWN 06/20/2007 @ 9:57pm

Posted by NEW DAWN 06/24/2007 @ 2:58pm

A blogger named HAPPY has to be amusing, at a minimum, to self....otherwise, it would be????? False labeling!

Interesting! Your Dawn-to-Dawn is glacial, took 4 days! LOL!

Posted by HAPPY 06/24/2007 @ 3:37pm

That's because I don't live on this site, Happy.

And you're still the only one who finds you amusing.

Posted by New Dawn at 06/26/2007 @ 11:52am

David Corn

Washington--a city of denials, spin, and political calculations. They may speak English there, but most citizens still need an interpreter to understand its ways and meanings. DAVID CORN, the Washington editor of The Nation magazine, has spent years analyzing the policies and pursuing the lies that spew out of the nation's capital. He is a novelist, biographer, and television and radio commentator who is able to both decipher and scrutinize Washington.

In his dispatches, he takes on the day-by-day political and policy battles under way in the Capitol, the White House, the think tanks, and the television studios. With an informed, unconventional perspective, he holds the politicians, policymakers and pundits accountable and reports the important facts and views that go uncovered elsewhere.

Check out David Corn's latest book, (co-written with Michael Isikoff and now available in paperback), Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War (Crown Publishers). For information, visit his personal blog at davidcorn.com.

Photo Credit: Michael Lorenzini

SiCKO Is Boffo

posted by David Corn on 06/21/2007 @ 2:15pm

David Corn

Archives

» The Beat

» Editor's Cut

» The Notion

» The Dreyfuss Report

» Act Now!

» And Another Thing

» Altercation

SiCKO Is Boffo

posted by David Corn on 06/21/2007 @ 2:15pm

Share this article

David Corn

Archives

» The Beat

» Editor's Cut

» The Notion

» The Dreyfuss Report

» Act Now!

» And Another Thing

» Altercation