Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
Reddit
This week, Senator Bernie Sanders has been firing on all cylinders as he continues his advocacy for real healthcare reform that controls costs while extending quality care to every American. Monday he held a town meeting in Burlington to discuss what we can learn from other countries that have developed cost effective universal health care systems. On Tuesday he met with President Obama along with other members of the Finance and Health, Education, Labor & Pensions (HELP) Committees responsible for drafting the Senate's healthcare legislation. Yesterday he arranged a meeting between single-payer advocates and Finance Chair Max Baucus--Baucus had previously not only denied them a seat at the table for his hearings but even had some arrested.
I had the opportunity to speak with Senator Sanders this evening as he took a brief break from ongoing discussions within the HELP Committee, and prior to his making the case for single-payer on The Ed Show (a case Schultz has featured on his five-night-a-week MSNBC program and in town halls across the country). This is what the Senator had to say:
Q: Tell me about the purpose of the meeting with Senator Baucus today?
Senator Sanders: The truth of the matter is--and I say this not ideologically but just from an objective analysis of the health care situation--the only way you're gonna provide comprehensive, universal, and cost-effective healthcare to every man, woman, and child in this country is through a single-payer system. That's just a simple reality. And the reason for that is that to pay for universal comprehensive healthcare you have to deal with the enormous amount of waste that is currently within the private health insurance industry. The estimate is about $400 billion a year in administrative costs, in billing, in profits, in CEO compensation, in advertising--all of those things which have nothing to do with the provision of healthcare...
In California, my understanding is that 1 out of every 3 dollars of premiums goes to administration. If we are gonna address the very rapid and dangerous increase in healthcare [costs], then the only way to do that is through a single-payer system which wrings out all of the waste that private health insurance creates.
So, you gotta put that issue out on the table and that's what we're trying to do.
The meeting with Senator Baucus is an effort to allow all of the people in this country--including 15,000 physicians, the largest nurses organizations--to at the very least begin to get a hearing [on] what is the most sensible proposal out there. I'm going to be talking to Senator Dodd--who for a while has taken over the leadership of the HELP Committee--about the possibility of a hearing within the HELP Committee. I don't know if that would happen but I'd like to see that.
I just think it's very important for the American people to understand why our system is the most expensive, the most wasteful, the most bureaucratic in the entire industrialized world. The only way you can do that is through the analysis that single-payer provides.
Q: What can you tell me about your meeting with President Obama?
Senator Sanders: The President wants a very aggressive timetable, I'm not sure that that can be met. His hope is that legislation is passed in the Senate before the August break. And that will require the Finance Committee to pass something, the HELP Committee to pass something, and then the two committees to work out their differences, and then to bring it to the floor and pass that. President Obama said he supports a public plan option and he [reiterated that] today in a letter to Senator Kennedy and Senator Baucus.
Q: What can progressives do to make sure there is truly a robust public plan option?
Senator Sanders: As a matter of fact, I've just come from--and will be going to in a few minutes--back to the HELP Committee where we are just discussing this issue. There are five different options--from strong to weak. This is not a mark-up, this is just an informal discussion among the members. But that is just what we are discussing right now. The American people have got to weigh in on this debate--get involved in this struggle --to say at the very least we want a strong public plan option. We can [also] make good progress on primary healthcare, expanding community health centers , training more healthcare professionals and implementing stronger quality control.
Q: Your bill that would allow five states to administer a single-payer system (S.898) --is that an incubator to move towards a national single-payer system?
Senator Sanders: That's right. And we're gonna push for that. We are absolutely gonna push for that. That came up at the meeting with Senator Baucus and it's something that I want in the bill.
Share this article
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Thoughts on politics, current affairs, riffs and reflections on what’s in the news and what’s not--but should be.
RSS
1. Bernie Sanders will be allowed to talk. And maybe add an amendment or something.
2. The final bill WON'T be single-payer....atleast not for another 10 years.
end of story
Posted by Mask at 06/04/2009 @ 10:59am
Senator Sanders: "The estimate is about $400 billion a year in administrative costs, in billing, in profits, in CEO compensation, in advertising--all of those things which have nothing to do with the provision of healthcare..."
That's like saying for any level of Gubberment, especially so at the Federal level, a huge chunk of our tax dollars go for administrative expenses.
What is the estimate of admin costs under a never-tried-in-US single-payer system?
What is the estimate of jobs to be lost by eliminating any portion of the estimated $400 billion having "nothing to do with the provision of healthcare"?
What is the estimate of cost saved from those unisured presently getting care from ER or even witch doctors that are funded by private or indigent care sources?
Frankly, the only way to control cost is to have single provider with a set budget....then, let patients wait, and wait, and wait...for their turn.
Posted by Happy at 06/04/2009 @ 11:20am
end the corn subsidies.
Posted by frosty zoom at 06/04/2009 @ 11:22am
Happy is happy to ration healthcare to the rich and none to the poor. Let them eat cake while they sleep on the floor.
Posted by srjenkins at 06/04/2009 @ 11:23am
How many bushels of corn for a band-aid frosty?
Posted by srjenkins at 06/04/2009 @ 11:24am
corn is the #1 killer in america:
Heart disease: 631,636 [72% CORN]
Cancer: 559,888 [47% CORN]
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 137,119 [33% CORN]
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 124,583 [2% CORN]
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 121,599 [.02% CORN]
Diabetes: 72,449 [CORN!!!!!!!!]
Alzheimer's disease: 72,432 [19% CORN]
Influenza and Pneumonia: 56,326 [4.2% CORN]
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 45,344 [.1% CORN]
Septicemia: 34,234 [.2% CORN]
Posted by frosty zoom at 06/04/2009 @ 11:31am
I guess I should give up my buttered corn bread washed down with Mountain Dew. The government makes me do it.
Posted by srjenkins at 06/04/2009 @ 11:53am
don't forget about the steaks.....
the government doesn't make you do it, the government makes it really cheap for you to do it.
Posted by frosty zoom at 06/04/2009 @ 12:00pm
Good to know until we go on an "all-soy diet"...
FROSTY will still have something to complain about!
LOL
Posted by Mask at 06/04/2009 @ 12:11pm
Anything but a single payer system is akin to a new coat of paint on a house comprised of dry rot, termites, and built on a foundation of pennies.
Posted by Extraneous at 06/04/2009 @ 12:15pm
If only if they could find a way to make vegetables cheaper...(community supported agriculture AND corn, anyone?)
Posted by srjenkins at 06/04/2009 @ 12:17pm
Bernie Sanders is correct, and the best way to get single payer will be for people to work for it in their individual states. Bernie has a bill that, if passed, would provide all the waivers necessary for a single state to enact a single payer system.
Once we get a single payer system in a few states, I think the idea will catch on because it really is the only way to achieve universality and cost control.
Of course it would be nice to have a single payer instituted at the national level immediately, but we know that the Obama administration as well as the Senate leadership will not go for this. We DO have a chance to get this enacted in individual states, and citizens should be organizing with a focus toward their state legislatures. That is exactly what we are doing in Vermont.
Posted by oxfeld at 06/04/2009 @ 12:24pm
"then, let patients wait, and wait, and wait...for their turn"
of course, it's all about wait times.......
forget all that other stuff.
Posted by darladoon at 06/04/2009 @ 12:41pm
Big pharma can't wait to be more intertwined with the government.
They can then create mandatory markets for their drugs. No more expensive ads for Gardasil, for instance. The force of government will just make it mandatory and the billions will roll in.
The 'fight' for socialized health care in the US is a ruse. There's no real fight.
It has already been decided.
Posted by freiheit1 at 06/04/2009 @ 1:24pm
I guess I should give up my buttered corn bread washed down with Mountain Dew. The government makes me do it. Posted by srjenkins at 06/04/2009 @ 11:53am | ignore this person | warn this person
If only if they could find a way to make vegetables cheaper...(community supported agriculture AND corn, anyone?) Posted by srjenkins at 06/04/2009 @ 12:17pm | ignore this person | warn this person
the first part is impenetrable. the second part? well vegetables are already very, very cheap.
I support community supported agriculture, and have been doing so for ten years or more. our farm fresh vegetable deliveries begin next week.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/04/2009 @ 1:44pm
"The 'fight' for socialized health care in the US is a ruse. There's no real fight"
yeah, no fight. none at all.
the drug companies and insurance companies have already thrown their hands up in the air and given up.
thanks freiheit.
Posted by darladoon at 06/04/2009 @ 2:16pm
not complaining mask.
just trying to save us money.
Posted by frosty zoom at 06/04/2009 @ 2:30pm
Darla, you've obviously missed the point (once again). Explain to me what drug companies and insurance companies will be giving up?
Here, I'll help. They are giving up NOTHING! What they are gaining in a collectivist model is the force and power of the federal government to back their monopoly rights.
You'll recall in your study of history that in the years preceeding 1913, the banking industry too was portrayed as fiercely against the Federal Reserve bill as well, when in reality a banking cartel backed by the government was exactly THEIR plan.
This is a proven way to lead populations blindly into areas they would oppose if they knew the truth.
It is a shame you are so adverse to the truth. You seem to see nationalization as a victory for the little guy against the powers of drug companies and insurance companies.
Once again, you define the term "useful idiot."
Posted by freiheit1 at 06/04/2009 @ 3:02pm
me a mine will never use the program that is on the way to he idiots who want someone lelse to pay for their health care and it will be worth every penny YOU pay got it.
Bernie and Kvh will never bee seen in those lines or clinics. Neither will I. But the 3rd world and all the frosty true believer types who pay nothbg will be there with smles and thnking how well it works until they get ratoned or die waiting. But then these types view the Post Office and GM unions as a success model .
Enjoy.
Posted by YourJomamma at 06/04/2009 @ 3:03pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 06/04/2009 @ 2:30pm
SOMEHOW...eliminating corn from our agricultural economy REALLY doesn't strike me as a "money saver", FZ.
And BTW, do we get to blame it on the Native Americans for introuding us to that killer veggie? Remember, they came up with tobacco, too!!!!....heheh
Posted by Mask at 06/04/2009 @ 3:03pm
he's baaack
Posted by emile duBois at 06/04/2009 @ 3:27pm
Posted by YourJomamma at 06/04/2009 @ 3:03pm
Hey, MAASCH, doing a little survey of the RWs here at TN....
When exactly did the "Reagan Recovery" officially start? Cite any economist you like.
Posted by Mask at 06/04/2009 @ 3:54pm
In the rush to single-payer (socialist) health care, the following gets overlooked: (not by all, by the Left)
1. Sen. Sanders says there is waste in the private health insurance industry, waste created by private health insurance.
My Comment: That waste is created to a large extent by current government requirements now on the private health insurance industry. We have a private health insurance industry but there is a lot about how it operates (such as paperwork requirements) that exists because of government demands or rules.
2. Sen. Sanders held a town meeting to discuss what could be learned from other countries that have developed cost effective universal health care systems. Since there are none, that must have been a short meeting. There are countries that have developed "systems" but they are not health care systems - they provide shoddy health care at times.
3. What is accomplished by dumbing down health care so as to make it available to all. What is gained if one has to wait forever to get a test that an American counterpart here gets almost right away, especially if one is in discomfort or their condition worsens as a result of the test?
4. The reduction of "costs" and the universal availability of health care in Canada and Europe is accomplished through rationing and government control which results in the denial to use life saving medicines in some cases because they are not on the "government formulary".
5. So things are made universally worse for everybody but the goal of some kind of fair and equal health care is NOT realized in places like Europe and Canada, because those with wealth can go to a private hospital or doctor (Europe) or go to a doctor here in the States (Canada) if need be.
to be continued
Posted by sjchermak at 06/04/2009 @ 4:05pm
"It is a shame you are so adverse to the truth. You seem to see nationalization as a victory for the little guy against the powers of drug companies and insurance companies"
take out everything after "against the powers...." and it's what i believe.
as for the rest of your post?
whatever. more fear-mongering. more non-sensical rants. more bullshit.
Posted by darladoon at 06/04/2009 @ 4:11pm
'And BTW, do we get to blame it on the Native Americans for introuding us to that killer veggie? Remember, they came up with tobacco, too!!!!....heheh'
Today's corn isn't the same as Tecumseh's corn, "Mask."
A good book to read to discover what "frosty zoom" means by the problem of agricultural subsidies is THE OMNIVORE'S DILEMMA by Michael Pollan. Basically, modern agribiz was created by Nixon's Agriculture Secretary, Earl "get-big-or-get-out" Butz. The idea was to get fewer people to produce more and more grain with more and more water and fossil-fuel inputs, so as to concentrate the ownership of the world's grain supply in the hands of a small number of US-American corporations. These corporations would use food as a weapon to win the Cold War.
In fact, the result was to make high-fructose corn syrup one of the cheapest, most highly subsidized commodities on the planet, which is why its producers try desperately to pump it into EVERY processed food in order to make a profit. This adds to our waistlines and detracts from our health.
In the meantime, we are running out of fossil fuels and fossil groundwater (such as the Ogallala aquifer), which means that the Green Revolution will soon fail to keep pace with population growth. This means that in the near future (until the Earth's human population somehow stabilizes), food is likely to get more expensive.
The solution is complicated. We need to practice diversified, polyculture farming and employ more people to do the work, with more education and better pay and fewer artificial, nonrenewable inputs. And we need to do a better job of conserving water.
The future of economic "growth" will be all about efficiency: about wasting less and doing more with what we save, about quality rather than quantity.
Posted by JakobFabian at 06/04/2009 @ 4:14pm
6. Some of the ideas promoted have a government plan as an option along with people being able to keep their own insurance. But from a cost standpoint (the cost a person will have to pay to have the plan) the government plan will be cheaper up front, and eventually this will drive private insurance out of the market altogether. Thus, although many on the single payer bandwagon say they are not promoting socialist insurance what will be set up will drive it that way..... eventually the government will be operating health care in this country.
7. There are some states like Massachusetts who require all to purchase health insurance and this supposedly drives down the cost and makes it more affordable. It does not appear this has worked as well as hoped for and also there is a moral question about forcing someone in a free country to spend their money on something they may not want.
(Yes, Mask I know it was Republican Mitt Romney who got that going when he was Governor of the Commonwealth)
In one respect, I hope Mask is right. It seems like Obama is bound and determined to ram this down our throats, but Mask says it won't happen for 10 years.
10 years from now, Obama will not be President (even if he has a second term that term will be over) and the part I hope Mask is right about is the ten year delay.... Then hopefully someone will stop this and Mask will be wrong about it happening period.
President Palin, perhaps?
Posted by sjchermak at 06/04/2009 @ 4:14pm
@emile - it's sarcasm. FZ blames cheap food, but veggies are cheap. I'm suggesting it's a bit more complicated and structural.
Posted by srjenkins at 06/04/2009 @ 4:36pm
fact, the result was to make high-fructose corn syrup one of the cheapest, most highly subsidized commodities on the planet, which is why its producers try desperately to pump it into EVERY processed food in order to make a profit. This adds to our waistlines and detracts from our health.
In the meantime, we are running out of fossil fuels and fossil groundwater (such as the Ogallala aquifer), which means that the Green Revolution will soon fail to keep pace with population growth. This means that in the near future (until the Earth's human population somehow stabilizes), food is likely to get more expensive.
The solution is complicated. We need to practice diversified, polyculture farming and employ more people to do the work, with more education and better pay and fewer artificial, nonrenewable inputs. And we need to do a better job of conserving water.
The future of economic "growth" will be all about efficiency: about wasting less and doing more with what we save, about quality rather than quantity.
Posted by JakobFabian at 06/04/2009 @ 4:14pm
That was funny! thanks for the joke
Posted by antisocialist at 06/04/2009 @ 4:41pm
Haha, Darla, I think in light of your incessant paranoia regarding "global warming" ooOOOoooOOooo... calling out anything I say as "fear mongering" is disingenuous.
What I find most astonishing is how you somehow have faith that your government - you know, the folks who brought you and remain in Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo, and gave $trillions to Wall Street without oversight, heck without even reading the bill! Yes, those people are going to tame big pharma and the insurance companies.
Right. Yep. Pharma and insurance are going to let the likes of Bernie Saunders shutter them?
You should try getting real for once.
Posted by freiheit1 at 06/04/2009 @ 5:32pm
Who will be covered? Only U.S. citizens? Not illegal immigrants, and greencard holders? lets borrow more to provide healthcare for LAtin America and anyone else who clambers up on the beach. Why has no one asked this question? Oh, its hateful and "racist" to do so--got it.
Posted by mike63 at 06/04/2009 @ 7:28pm
At present, profit-driven insurance companies insert themselves into decisions about how a doctor may attempt to treat an illness.
What makes a profit for a health insurance company? Taking as much money as possible from people while they are well... paying out as little money as possible for for the treatment of people when they are sick. Is that profit pattern in YOUR interest as a patient?
If the company can find a way to cut off your insurance coverage when you are sick, it is a big win for the insurance company. They save money. And you have paid a lot of money for nothing.
Or if you die as soon as possible after getting a serious health problem---or after you just grow old---it is a big win for the insurance company. They save money. They only pay out for sick people, not for dead people.
Here is a VERY important question:
Why would any sane person want their personal healthcare in the hands of a corporation that will inevitably profit whenever the sick or elderly die as soon as possible?
Posted by Reason_with_me at 06/04/2009 @ 7:39pm
At last, One Payer is on the table.
In addition to expanding community health centers, the numbers of nurse practitioners should be increased in order to provide preventive and primary care to our communities.
Utilizing nurse practitioners also solves the problem of shortness of MD's as the baby boomer generation ages and demands for healthcare services increase.
Empower our nurses!
Posted by nursevic at 06/04/2009 @ 8:13pm
Posted by mike63 at 06/04/2009 @ 7:28pm | ignore this person | warn this person
xenophobe.
you hate others because of your own inadequacy.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/04/2009 @ 9:42pm
SOMEHOW...eliminating corn from our agricultural economy REALLY doesn't strike me as a "money saver", FZ.
And BTW, do we get to blame it on the Native Americans for introuding us to that killer veggie? Remember, they came up with tobacco, too!!!!....heheh
Posted by Mask at 06/04/2009 @ 3:03pm
mask,
the corn the indians grew is much different than the supersugar corn of today.
people dig their graves with their mouths.
ever wonder why america is the fastest nation on earth?
Posted by frosty zoom at 06/04/2009 @ 9:49pm
fat people = high health care costs....
Posted by frosty zoom at 06/04/2009 @ 9:52pm
....why america is the fastest nation on earth?
Posted by frosty zoom at 06/04/2009 @ 9:49pm
I always thought Kenya is the fastest nation on earth......:~)
==================
fat people = high health care costs....
Posted by frosty zoom at 06/04/2009 @ 9:52pm
Just about every fat person I know is above-average in being personable.....Darin certainly fits the mold. If we can have ALL Americans be personable, I'd say let's all be fat.......
Then, we'll ALL have problems trying to avoid airplane seats next to fellow fatties......:::::~~~~))))))
I fly Southwest (open seating) a fair amount, and being <200-lbs, fatties just zeroes in on me & love to have me close and personal.......:~((((((
Posted by Happy at 06/04/2009 @ 10:47pm
Fatties are looters/moochers of other people's space on planes!
Posted by Happy at 06/04/2009 @ 10:49pm
Ten short years to single payer.
Posted by winyahn at 06/04/2009 @ 11:03pm
Single payer will cover all those people currently under the "emergency" umbrella at hospitals all over the country.
Those who are being garnished by collection agencies after failing to meet the payment schedule demanded by the local hospital, should take heart in that they don't live in a country with "socialized medicine". You know, where people die waiting for care & are forced to use drugs left over from the horse cavalry.
Start moonlighting & saving now, poverty level folk, so you can pay an attorney to initiate bankruptcy proceedings after your hospitalization. It pencils out.
Posted by Sorelish at 06/04/2009 @ 11:55pm
Reason_with_me,
The things you complain about up above, the effect of insurance company influence on treatment decisions/options, etc.....
......will be in the hands of lazy government bureaucrats, who will do nothing other than administer what the regulation written by some other bureaucrat tells them to do, once we have socialist medicine.
In most cases there would be no ability to do otherwise, if immediate family wanted to try other options.
The bureaucrat would rule no, the "reg" says no, and the family would be told that "unfortunately" there is nothing else the bureaucrat can do.
If some other kind of medicine would help, but it is not on the govenment "formulary", then that would be that.
There would be no possibility of the patient getting that other medicine.
The bureaucrat would rule no, the "reg" says no, and the family would be told that "unfortunately" there is nothing else the bureaucrat can do.
If the bureaucrat was located right there at the hospital, and the family were meeting with the bureaucrat to argue their case, once the family was told no, that would be that.
If the family got upset and the argument got heated, the family would very quickly find that hospital security has been called.
All because there is nothing the bureaucrat can do or wants to do. The regs tell him or her what to do.
The only leeway the bureaucrat has is when they move the stack of paper, one sheet at a time, from one side of the desk to the other, as their are "reviewing" and "analyzing" various cases (i.e., just marking down what the reg says to do), and then repeating the process in reverse the next day, they can stack the paper where they want on their desk
If you believe it is wrong now, why would socialist medicine be any better?
Posted by sjchermak at 06/05/2009 @ 08:44am
FROSTY, it's not the "corn"...it's the "corn syrup"...also the FAT and the SALT.
And do you really think it's the corn syrup in the Sprite, that's making us fat with the Combo....or the double patty cheese burger and the fries?
Posted by Mask at 06/05/2009 @ 08:57am
Bernie Sanders is correct, and the best way to get single payer will be for people to work for it in their individual states. Bernie has a bill that, if passed, would provide all the waivers necessary for a single state to enact a single payer system.
Once we get a single payer system in a few states, I think the idea will catch on because it really is the only way to achieve universality and cost control.
Posted by oxfeld at 06/04/2009 @ 12:24pm
I appologize for being so blunt, but this is really dumb. You are advocating 50-payer, not single-payer. I think 50-payer is the best way to address the problem, but I don't think it is helpful to mislable the solution.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 06/05/2009 @ 11:50am
Here's the question that gets to the heart of whether or not we need single payer:
Is is enough to provide a subsidy to the poor to can't afford healthcare?
Or is it equally important to make sure rich people don't get more care than the poor?
After all, there is only a finite amount of healthcare...
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 06/05/2009 @ 12:05pm
"In 2008, health care spending in the United States reached $2.4 T projected to reach $3.1T in 2012, $4.3T by 2016"
Say we're 430M by 2016. Do we each need $10k worth of healthcare per year...on AVERAGE?
Perhaps our resident actuary can put my shock into perspective.
Posted by snowball666 at 06/05/2009 @ 09:21am
Do we need it? That depends. A "need" really isn't a need. A need is a desire coupled with an unpleasant consequence of not getting it.
Do you need food? You can go a few days, before you die. Same with water, shelter, clothing. In an advanced industrialized society, without education, transportation, or healthcare, one doesn't die, but one is unable to live a fulfilling life, so these are often described as needs.
Do you need depression medication? I think 25% of adults are on it. Is it making any difference?
There's a woman here in Charlotte. I'm not certain she's homeless, but her and a male companion are on the street everyday knitting stuff to sell. She recently had her legs amputated and now she tools around in a wheelchair I'd guess costs $5000. Does she need this?
I guess my point is that need is subjective. Having strong libertarian sympathies, I'm in favor of letting each define his own need, so long as he has to pay for it, and subsidizing the rest.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 06/05/2009 @ 12:20pm
FROSTY, it's not the "corn"...it's the "corn syrup"...also the FAT and the SALT. And do you really think it's the corn syrup in the Sprite, that's making us fat with the Combo....or the double patty cheese burger and the fries?
Posted by Mask at 06/05/2009 @ 08:57am
and how do they make the cows fat?
cheap corn = cheap "meat"
Posted by frosty zoom at 06/05/2009 @ 12:57pm
"udy Shows Corn is King at McDonald's, Wendy's and Burger King By Katherine Glover | November 11th, 2008 @ 4:56 pm
0 Comments Share Email My BNET Twitter del.icio.us Google StumbleUpon Newsvine Facebook LinkedIn Digg My Yahoo Technorati Reddit PrintRecomend8 A new study suggests most fast-food beef and chicken items come from corn-fed animals. It's not a new revelation; Michael Pollan's 2006 book The Omnivore's Dilemma documented the ubiquity of corn products -- or corn-fed products -- in supermarkets as well as fast-food restaurants, thanks in no small part to huge government subsidies for corn. But according to the study's authors, this is the first time anyone has measured the trend in meat through scientific means.
By looking at carbon and nitrogen isotopes, co-authors A. Hope Jahren and Rebecca Kraft concluded that out of the 162 fast food burgers they tested, only 12 could have been from cows fed anything other than corn. And all of the chicken sandwiches were made from corn-fed chickens. Their meat samples came from McDonald's, Burger King and Wendy's franchises in different cities across the U.S. -- and all the non-corn-fed samples came from West Coast Burger Kings."
Posted by frosty zoom at 06/05/2009 @ 12:59pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 06/05/2009 @ 12:59pm
Fine, FROSTY...put "corn" on the list of Things Destroying Us That Will Never Be Eliminated Except If the Utopia Comes, Which It Ain't.
BTW, you ARE getting your old "do with less, less consumerism" ideal now...
some of us just call it a "recession".
Posted by Mask at 06/05/2009 @ 1:15pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 06/05/2009 @ 12:59pm
Easily fixed. Eat buffalo, pork, lamb, and fish.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/05/2009 @ 1:16pm
Totally agree! where are the minds of oponents?
Posted by pel5445wo96 at 06/05/2009 @ 1:51pm
This would seem a correctable condition to me; space for hospitals is in abundance (especially in this commercial RE market),...
Posted by snowball666 at 06/05/2009 @ 1:11pm
A pretty silly, uneducated thought!
Hospitals are just about the most specialized, ultra-expensive AND single-use buildings around and aren't even classified as "commercial RE"! What goes into them for outfitting, are even more expensive!
Medical professional buildings, which I have some familiarity from my commercial RE career, are also highly specialized. They cost far more per sq. ft. than your typical multi-tenant buildings. When was the last time you read of (greedy) developers converting old buildings into Med/Prof space?
IF and when we move to your utopia of single-payer, new constructions of facilities and med/prof. buildings will grind to a trickle.......fine for folks living in mature areas, not so fine for areas of growth.
Posted by Happy at 06/05/2009 @ 1:58pm
Fine, FROSTY...put "corn" on the list of Things Destroying Us That Will Never Be Eliminated Except If the Utopia Comes, Which It Ain't.
Posted by Mask at 06/05/2009 @ 1:15pm
you are paying for the subsidies.
and the higher health care costs.
enjoy.
Posted by frosty zoom at 06/05/2009 @ 2:37pm
Easily fixed. Eat buffalo, pork, lamb, and fish.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/05/2009 @ 1:16pm
""But as for you, take wheat, barley, beans, lentils, millet and spelt, put them in one vessel and make them into bread for yourself; you shall eat it according to the number of the days that you lie on your side, three hundred and ninety days."
Posted by frosty zoom at 06/05/2009 @ 2:39pm
BTW, you ARE getting your old "do with less, less consumerism" ideal now... some of us just call it a "recession".
Posted by Mask at 06/05/2009 @ 1:15pm
actually, it's really a depression.
i kept telling you the poo was gonna hit the fan.
Posted by frosty zoom at 06/05/2009 @ 2:43pm
it's really a depression.
i kept telling you the poo was gonna hit the fan.
Posted by frosty zoom at 06/05/2009 @ 2:43pm
As gloomy and impervious to Magic's potion as I am, I don't think "its really a depression"! Money can be made and health can be gained......
Think I'll enjoy this Great Recession as much as you greenies!
The poo won't be easy to wipe off.....not with Magistik, at least....hehehehe!
Posted by Happy at 06/05/2009 @ 3:14pm
Would someone please relay the message to KVH and Sanders that government cannot control COSTS; it can only control PRICES.
Again.
Posted by plainbruce at 06/05/2009 @ 5:13pm
that's nonsense. electronic records and single payer significantly reduce costs.
how's the practice, doc? hahahahaha
Posted by emile duBois at 06/05/2009 @ 5:26pm
Bernie Sandres, Byron Dorgan, Marcy Kaptur, some of the few bright spots on the national stage.
Posted by julien38 at 06/05/2009 @ 8:31pm
The poo won't be easy to wipe off.....not with Magistik, at least....hehehehe!
Posted by Happy at 06/05/2009 @ 3:14pm
you still have yet to respond to my request for your interpretation of how secretary gramm would be handling this.
Posted by frosty zoom at 06/05/2009 @ 9:13pm
that's nonsense. electronic records and single payer significantly reduce costs.
how's the practice, doc? hahahahaha
Posted by emile duBois at 06/05/2009
As usual, you're not thinking. To help you, I'll summarize. Costs are those expenditures paid by the doctor (rent, salaries, equpment, etc). Prices are what you pay when you see the doctor. Government can't control what physicians have to shell out to keep their doors open. Government can only control how much a doctor gets reimbursed (i.e. prices).
On a side note, I'm anxious to see how much administrative costs are reduced when 300 million Americans are appealling health care decisions made by beaurocrats.
Not really.
Posted by plainbruce at 06/05/2009 @ 10:12pm
Government can't run it's schools properly how can it seriously run healthcare. Medicare and Medicaid are prime examples of bloat. wring that mess out first.
Why don't the bureaucrats "wring out" the problems and bloat of government first? Then honestly look into Healthcare for those. If Obama is pro choice, then why force people into a plan they may not want. Answer: Control.
This plan is to force employees to complain about being taxed for their healthcare benefits. This will force ownership to consider the lower cost government plan (which will be worse) due to price fixing. Ownership will kill their plans and give the people what they want.
The easy thing to do is: those who do not have plans can buy a cheap government plan. Done. Do not force everyone to crappy govt care.
Posted by apoorspic at 06/05/2009 @ 10:57pm
Government can't run it's schools properly how can it seriously run healthcare.
you are confused. what gov't runs the schools? STATE gov't. what gov't runs medicare and medicaid? the FEDERAL gov't.
how can you contribute anything to the discussion when you ignorant of basic facts.
maybe your handle would be better as adopeyspic
Posted by emile duBois at 06/06/2009 @ 09:12am
Costs are those expenditures paid by the doctor (rent, salaries, equpment, etc).
single payer will cut down on the number of staff the doctor, not you, has to hire. instead of dealing with a myriad of different providers, the office can be stream lined. and that is COST, o "thoughtful" liar.
my doctor has an administrative staff of at least 8. and that in a two doctor practice.
medicare, a single payer program has a far lower overhead than the multiple insurance carrier program.
there is another aspect that adds to COST. the fact that the insurance companies have to make a tidy profit.
you are a light weight and a doctrinaire one at that.
and a phony doctor. hahahahahaha
Posted by emile duBois at 06/06/2009 @ 09:19am
What is the administrative cost of a single payer plan? It's 3%. It's called Medicare. Contrast that with 33% for private insurance in California. Case closed. Medicare for everybody. It's the logical choice for this country. Hats off to Bernie!
Posted by samstone at 06/06/2009 @ 5:40pm
Posted by emile duBois at 06/06/2009
The problem you have is assuming that socialized medicine will cover everything, which it won't. For those tests, medications, and referrals that are unapproved by the government, pre-authorizations will be required, same as HMOs require them now. If those tests, meds, etc. are still denied, the patients will appeal, same as they do now. That whole process begins with the same employee that handles HMO referrals now. We have 1 employee whose main job description is handling referrals. Instead of dealing with several HMOs, she will be fighting one giant HMO in the government. In case you haven't heard, when dealing with the government, there's a lot of red tape that must be cut.
As far as savings in "overhead" costs, I touched on this upthread. I am waiting to see just how much savings are realized when 300 million people are appealing decisions and a bloated bureaucracy that is trying to cut "costs" is handling them.
Posted by plainbruce at 06/06/2009 @ 10:33pm
After all, there is only a finite amount of healthcare... Posted by
Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 06/05/2009 @ 12:05pm |
This would seem a correctable condition to me; ...
Posted by snowball666 at 06/05/2009 @ 1:11pm
A pretty silly, uneducated thought!
Posted by Happy at 06/05/2009 @ 1:58pm
Hey guys, I was being ironic. Clearly, there is not a limited "supply" of healthcare. We can easily maufacture more doctors, nurses, etc through education, but this will cost us engineers, teachers, and lawyers.
There is not a limited supply of fresh water as it is continually being recycled through rain. There is not a limited supply of wood or coal or oil. It is continuously being replenished through natural processes.
However, we can potentially use up the current supply, which is exactly what will happen with healthcare once it is free, unless it is rationed by beauracrats.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 06/08/2009 @ 12:50pm
Why not look at the healthcare systems in other industrialized nations? Great Britain, Sweden, Taiwan, Japan, Canada... The system we have does not work--not for the vast majority of its citizens. (It's funny, every Canadian I've spoken to loves their healthcare system.) The "market's" only concern is profit; sustainability, fairness, whether or not people are receiving adequate or preventive care is not an issue.
Posted by mtspence05 at 06/08/2009 @ 6:22pm
Heehee! What a surprise!! The GOP is opposed!!
Years ago I retired at age 62. As a senior officer of a large corporation I was entitled to several years of company provided health benefits. My benefits would run out about 7 months before I was eligible for medicare.
Well in due course I applied for a private policy with the same insurer I had had most of my life.
"No. We dont want you. You have a pre-existing condition". Like anyone who is 64 doesn't.
Well the law in my state mandates that the insurer had to sell me a policy since I had no break in coverage. Unfortunately it doesn't mandate what the insurer could charge me.
The price for me alone was $1,120 per month.
My wife had already passed away. Since she was several years younger than I, didn't work, was covered by my company insurance and years away from medicare we would have had to find some way to isure her had she lived - which is a problem facing millions.
Luckily I could afford it and I only needed it for 7 months.
"Health care reform" without a government option program is not reform at all.
I've got my medicare and a good supplement policy (which by the way costs $390 per quarter and only serves as a backup to medicare). Without medicare there would be 40 million more old people without coverage.
No thanks to the "private sector".
:-)
Posted by toritto at 06/08/2009 @ 6:42pm
The system we have does not work--not for the vast majority of its citizens. (It's funny, every Canadian I've spoken to loves their healthcare system.) The "market's" only concern is profit; sustainability, fairness, whether or not people are receiving adequate or preventive care is not an issue.
Posted by mtspence05 at 06/08/2009 @ 6:22pm
Empty,
Suppose I bought a Lambroghini and was out on the autobahn tooling around at 180 mph. Then I drive it over to your house and you need to haul a load of rock and suggest we use my Lambroghini for that. And I tell you it won't do that. Would you tell me that my Lambroghini "does not work"?
My car wasn't designed to accomplish your objectives. That doesn't mean it "does not work."
The US healthcare system delivers some of the best care in the world to 270 million of it's 300 million citizens. There are about 30 million citizens (and an additional 10 - 15 million illegal aliens who) who can only get care by paying out of pocket (the young who go to a doctor) or the emergency room.
So you're telling me that 10% is a "vast majority" and 90% isn't?
If you want a universal system, say so. Don't make a number of statements that are factually inaccurate.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 06/09/2009 @ 06:47am
I see there are a number of people in here who represent the for-profit health care community or have already bought into the neoCON lies and misinformation. Why do you think they are fighting so hard to defeat single payer? Because they care about American health care? Please, there isn't a person in this country who can look you square in the eye and say they believe that. No, the only thing they are protecting is their bank accounts. They say we can't afford it, it will put our children and grandchildren into debt forever. Where was their concern when bush was raging his illegal and ill-advised war against a country that had nothing to do with 9/11? THAT is what put us into enormous debt and still is. Where were the neoCONS then with their, "it will cost us trillions?" What hypocrites they are while enjoying 'socialized' medicine at the taxpayer's expense.
We need and want single payer and we want it now, not 10 years, not 15 years, not ANOTHER generation down the road. NOW, and I for one will fight tooth and nail to advance that belief. The citizens of this country need single payer and everyone who isn't interested solely in their own pocket knows that.
Posted by myfoot at 06/09/2009 @ 08:58am
Single party payer system is the only way to go:
1. What is the purpose of an insurance company. To make profits.
2. We already have a single party payer system called Medicare. Ask your senior citizen friends (which I am one) what type of services have they been denied.
3, Estimated cost of admin fees (prior to the Newt Grinich) was three per cent.
Retired owner of a private medical office.
Limbo
Posted by limbo at 06/09/2009 @ 2:16pm
It's time we stop the insanity of for-profit healthcare profiting from denial of coverage and resulting death. It's time we put aside our greed and take care of all of our citizens with a single-payer plan. As Sanders mentioned, it is "the only way you're gonna provide comprehensive, universal, and cost-effective healthcare to every man, woman, and child in this country".
A capitalist for-profit approach has not and will never work because health insurance companies do not profit by providing coverage. They profit most from collecting the maximum amount of money they can get away with and providing the minimum amount of coverage they can get away with. Their obligation is first and foremost to the stock holders. How about we have a system that serves people who need health care first and foremost? Seems logical to me.
Posted by noxidereus at 06/09/2009 @ 2:40pm
Single payer system is the only way to go. If medicare was a single payer like the VA or the Congressional health plan , it would save billions--and what is wrong with medicare? The health insurance companies are only in it for the buck--as evidenced by their successful efforts with the last GOP conmgress to ram through the perscription drug plan that leaves many in the hole--the donut hole--and prevents dealing with foreign countries who get their drugs and medical services for far less. Lets support Senator Bernie Sanders who is a thoughtful Senator in his quest for the single payer plan.
Posted by Couldchuck at 06/09/2009 @ 4:11pm
My car wasn't designed to accomplish your objectives. That doesn't mean it "does not work."
The US healthcare system delivers some of the best care in the world to 270 million of it's 300 million citizens. There are about 30 million citizens (and an additional 10 - 15 million illegal aliens who) who can only get care by paying out of pocket (the young who go to a doctor) or the emergency room.
So you're telling me that 10% is a "vast majority" and 90% isn't?
If you want a universal system, say so. Don't make a number of statements that are factually inaccurate.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 06/09/2009 @ 06:47am |
Well, if I had money to waste on an incredibly expensive Italian sports car I wouldn't be at all concerned with blowing a $1,200 or more a month on insurance; for those of us with less disposable income, however, the current system is not working. Employers can no longer afford to pay for their employees' coverage; the employees cannot afford to pay out of pocket for full coverage; higher co-pays with less than 100% coverage; medical bills bankrupting many Americans--these are the facts confronting the Americans driving Civics, Malibus, Camrys. A "great" system would provide medical care at an affordable cost.
Posted by mtspence05 at 06/09/2009 @ 4:50pm
Single party payer system is the only way to go:
1. What is the purpose of an insurance company. To make profits.
2. We already have a single party payer system called Medicare. Ask your senior citizen friends (which I am one) what type of services have they been denied.
3, Estimated cost of admin fees (prior to the Newt Grinich) was three per cent.
Retired owner of a private medical office.
Limbo
Posted by limbo at 06/09/2009 @ 2:16pm
You're not exactly objective, are you?
Posted by mtspence05 at 06/09/2009 @ 4:52pm
I feel I can weigh in here...last August 1 I went to the emergency room with meningitis like symptoms. After 9 hours, an MRI, and 3 spinal taps, I left with a 9800 dollar bill. Because I am an ind. contractor and work was slow, my ins. had run out the day before and not renewed. The upthrust of this story is that I have a 400/month payment plan for my visit. I have not renewed my insurance because not only was the premium 1200/month, they would only cover half the visit...so I have saved thousands by not being insured. That premium includes my wife and 3 young children. Something is very, very wrong with this picture...
Posted by dekist at 06/09/2009 @ 5:54pm
Posted by dekist
Sounds like you needed to haul a couple of tons of rocks with a Civic.
Posted by mtspence05 at 06/09/2009 @ 6:27pm
Outstanding!
Posted by dekist at 06/09/2009 @ 7:25pm
It's depressing to see how many morons whine that a single-payer system would result in a bloated bureaucracy and then further whine that a public option would be unfair to the insurance companies because they wouldn't be able to compete with it!
If you want to know what a single-payer system would be like just ask anyone on Medicaire.
You pick your doctor, no referral required.
You go for your examination, tests and treatment.
You have no forms to fill out, no cost other than the annual deductible.
And it costs a couple hundred a month per person, with supplemental coverage.
What a lousy system!
And if you wonder why Medicaire spends so much, it's because all its customer are OLD! If it covered everyone, including the young and healthy, the cost per individual would go way down.
Medicaire has very low administrative expenses, no profit motive, no advertising costs and no CEO perks. Oh yeah, that's why you want a "private solution!" The $400B wasted each year would be more than enough to pay for universal Medicaire.
The fact remains: We spend far more per capita on medical care in the US than any other country and we have very poor care, even for the insured.
Leave the wingnut free enterprise dogma out of the conversation. Stick to the facts.
Posted by VTSkier at 06/10/2009 @ 06:50am
when 300 million people are appealing decisions
this is just stupidity.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/10/2009 @ 11:52am