Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
Reddit
The nation's for profit health insurers are out to scuttle anything within the Obama healthcare plan that might be in any way public.
One week after the insurance lobby pledged to voluntarily constrain rising costs, Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina is preparing a public message campaign aimed at killing the public non-profit part of Obama's reform plan.
Anyone who's been watching has heard the data that have the insurance profiteers so scared. A government-run plan, with no need for profits for Wall Street or bonuses to retain CEOs -- a plan run only to deliver healthcare for the public -- would cut the cost of healthcare. Period. Single payer advocates say that's the only way to go but Obama's still offering a compromise: a bit of both.
According to the Washington Post, as part of what it calls an "informational website," Blue Cross Blue Shield has hired an outside firm to make a series of videos to terrify the public about Obama's so-called public option. In three 30-second videos, the insurer paints a picture of a future system in which patients wait months for appointments and can't choose their own doctors.
One spot in the series shows a woman and child wandering down a darkened hospital doorway, "as if they're starting to realize that they've lost their way," according to sketches of the video. "We can do a lot better than a government-run healthcare system," the narrator concludes.
The company's tactics are familiar -- remember the Harry and Louise ads? For profit-companies savaged Hillary Clinton's reform plan. It's right out of the right wing PR book: scare the public and lie about the facts. The fact is, Obama's healthcare plan wouldn't force anyone to choose the not-for-profit option.
But boy, how the insurers fear they might. Suddenly all those professed beliefs in free markets and competition are out the window. Profiteers don't like competition with an option that's non-profit.
What the private healthcare lobby understands that has them so frightened now is that public healthcare would be preferable because it would be better and cheaper. Their fear just underscores the reality: it's time to move beyond a sick system that's rigged for profit to a public plan that's actually about health.
Laura Flanders is the host of GRITtv which broadcasts weekdays on Free Speech TV (Dish Network Ch. 9415) on cable (8 pm ET on Channel 67 in Manhattan and other cities) and online daily at GRITtv.org and TheNation.com.
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
Seems if the "competitive spirit" is alive....
have both (public and private) and let them fight it out for "Who's better?"
Posted by Mask at 05/21/2009 @ 10:05am
Why don't Hospitals have price lists? Ya know like its $1500 for a tonsilectomy or $900.00 for an MRI. Post it on their website along with success and failure rates.
Posted by abell12ct at 05/21/2009 @ 11:09am
It's really sick, the way the health care system is seen by very rich people as first and foremost a profits system for them, at all costs to anyone and everyone.
Posted by syfriendly at 05/21/2009 @ 11:09am
FLANDERS: "A government-run plan, with no need for profits for Wall Street or bonuses to retain CEOs -- a plan run only to deliver healthcare for the public -- would cut the cost of healthcare. Period."
What a load of crap! Period!!!
Granted, anything Gubber-run, has "no need or profits for Wall Street or bonuses", but it's just flat out a universal truth of of no substantiations of past record of any program's ability to cut costs! Period!!!
In a WSJ editorial yesterday, a rehash of the sorry track record of the times when the Gubbers attempted to do so, an example was cited of the Gubbers starting a steel mill in 1913 (during WWI when it thought the steel was overpriced by industrialists).....the plant ended up way over budget (surprised?) and the steel it produced costed twice what commercial steel did. That plant was abandoned.
The more current example used in the op-ed, is MediCare in which, 1/3 of the expenditures for medical equipments (wheelchairs and such), were fraudulent......few were willing to blow the whistle! Why bother, there is nothing (like bonuses or career advancement) to encourage savings and prudent oversight of spending public money!
Public money is inefficient, corruption-inducing money!
Posted by Happy at 05/21/2009 @ 11:09am
<On two separate issues -- health-care and the budget -- the president has promised savings of $2 trillion. A total of $4 trillion dollars -- now that's real money. Unfortunately, the claims are completely exaggerated.
First, take health care. Recently, a collection of industry groups came to Washington for a meeting and photo-op with the president. News headlines trumpeted their pledge to save $2 trillion over the next decade -- headlines that were not surprising given that President Obama said, "over the next 10 years -- from 2010 to 2019 -- they are pledging to cut the rate of growth of national health care spending by 1.5 percentage point each year -- an amount that's equal to over $2 trillion. Two trillion dollars."
Turns out that's not what the groups said at all. In their letter to Obama, they promised to "do our part to achieve your Administration's goal of decreasing by 1.5 percentage points annual health-care spending growth rate -- saving $2 trillion or more." Of course, their part of that savings may be significantly less than the full $2 trillion. The groups offered no further specifics. And, anyway, there would be no way to enforce such a hazy commitment. The administration, I'm told, understood this, but the president and others apparently chose to convey a much more optimistic message.>
http://tinyurl.com/qo57su
Medicare is bankrupt and bankrupting the country and the left holds it up as a model. Bizarre logic
Posted by antisocialist at 05/21/2009 @ 11:16am
Posted by Happy at 05/21/2009 @ 11:09am | ignore this person | warn this person
You can talk about steel mills in 1913 until you are blue in the face. Canada, Britain, France, Germany, and Scandinavia all have government-paid systems, and all have better-providing, lower-cost health care systems than us, and all generally score better on the various metrics of population-wide health.
You can fetishize the private systems all you want because you personally profit from stock market transactions, but the reality is that the national health care system is not a bauble for you to toy with or something primarily intended to make you money.
Posted by syfriendly at 05/21/2009 @ 11:42am
Public money is inefficient, corruption-inducing money!
Posted by Happy at 05/21/2009 @ 11:09am | ignore this person | warn this person
And (take a look at the de-regulation of securities and "securitized risk") private money doesn't induce corruption?
And just how much of the twice-as-large-cost of the US insurance model goes to inefficiency, that is, insurance companies trying to fob off the bill on someone else?
It's time to grow up. "Conservatives" are wrong about a bunch of things, including, hugely, the health care system. You've been discredited. It's your own fault. Now suffer silently, please.
Posted by syfriendly at 05/21/2009 @ 11:44am
Republicans are idiots.
Posted by syfriendly at 05/21/2009 @ 11:45am
Bizarre logic
Posted by antisocialist at 05/21/2009 @ 11:16am
Since when was logic ever a part of your lexicon? With your advocacy of "psychic surgery" you probably think Medicare is cutting into your profits. Or lack thereof.
Posted by Sorelish at 05/21/2009 @ 11:45am
"anything Gubber-run"
perhaps the greatest Myth of a universal health care plan is that the government will "run" it.
"Medicare is bankrupt and bankrupting the country and the left holds it up as a model"
right. medicare is bankrupting the country, not multiple imperial misadventures, under-regulated financial markets, and way too low tax rates.
"Public money is inefficient, corruption-inducing money!"
if that is an argument against public health, then it is no wonder why this country is so fucked.
Posted by darladoon at 05/21/2009 @ 12:09pm
In a WSJ editorial yesterday, a rehash of the sorry track record of the times when the Gubbers attempted to do so, an example was cited of the Gubbers starting a steel mill in 1913 (during WWI when it thought the steel was overpriced by industrialists).....the plant ended up way over budget (surprised?) and the steel it produced costed twice what commercial steel did. That plant was abandoned.
Posted by Happy at 05/21/2009 @ 11:09am
so why do you let "them" run the military?
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/21/2009 @ 12:12pm
if that is an argument against public health, then it is no wonder why this country is so fucked.
Posted by darladoon at 05/21/2009 @ 12:09pm
that's what happens when PROPHET and PROFIT run the show....
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/21/2009 @ 12:15pm
want to save trillions?
STOP SUBSIDIZING CORN AND SOYA.
sheesh.
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/21/2009 @ 12:15pm
speaking of things being "too expensive" to pay for, james madison said this in 1795
"Of all the enemies of true liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.... No nation can preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."
Posted by darladoon at 05/21/2009 @ 12:24pm
Please don't be fooled. Big pharma and the major health care providers would love nothing more than nationalized health care. It would give them monopoly control backed by the force of government. It would eliminate pesky competition. And lead to even greater profit margins.
I'm surprised how oblivious some people are to the dangers of collectivism in health care services. But amongst those people, our liberty is taken for granted anyway. Haha, I like the quote i heard, "you're not going to believe how expensive 'free' health care really is!"
My personal belief is in a competitive free market overall costs for health care would be lower and efficiency higher. Too bad we've never really had competitive free markets in this segment.
I hope it all works out. But Congress is incapable of doing this right.
Posted by freiheit1 at 05/21/2009 @ 12:27pm
Please don't be fooled. Big pharma and the major health care providers would love nothing more than nationalized health care.
Posted by freiheit1 at 05/21/2009 @ 12:27pm
wtf?
so, why are they trying to destroy my health care system?
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/21/2009 @ 12:30pm
" Big pharma and the major health care providers would love nothing more than nationalized health care"
probably the single most ridiculous statement ever published on this website.
Posted by darladoon at 05/21/2009 @ 12:32pm
"It would give them monopoly control backed by the force of government. It would eliminate pesky competition. And lead to even greater profit margins"
and the stupidity just keeps on going? omg!
Posted by darladoon at 05/21/2009 @ 12:33pm
right. medicare is bankrupting the country, not multiple imperial misadventures, under-regulated financial markets, and way too low tax rates.
if that is an argument against public health, then it is no wonder why this country is so fucked.
Posted by darladoon at 05/21/2009 @ 12:09pm
Darla, you just keep inserting your head in the sand. Instead you ought to listen to the man who was the nation's CPA for many years under Democrats and Republicans-former Comptroller General David Walker
<The United States has gone from the largest creditor nation to the largest debtor nation--and not due to the war on terrorism, Walker noted. "Of that $760 billion deficit last year, only $100 billion had anything to do with Iraq, Afghanistan or incremental Homeland Security costs," Walker said>
http://tinyurl.com/qeucfn
This is from Walker's interview on 60 Minutes
<Walker says you could eliminate all waste and fraud and the entire Pentagon budget and the long-range financial problem still wouldn't go away, in what's shaping up as an actuarial nightmare.
Part of the problem, Walker acknowledges, is that there won't be enough wage earners to support the benefits of the baby boomers. "But the real problem, Steve, is health care costs. Our health care problem is much more significant than Social Security," he says.
Asked what he means by that, Walker tells Kroft, "By that I mean that the Medicare problem is five times greater than the Social Security problem.">
Posted by antisocialist at 05/21/2009 @ 12:48pm
(CBS) Walker says we have promised almost unlimited healthcare to senior citizens who never see the bills, and the government already is borrowing money to pay them. He says the system is unsustainable.
"Any politician who tells you that we can solve our problem without reforming Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid is not telling you the truth," Walker told an audience at the University of Denver.
http://tinyurl.com/2zfhkg
And Walker also adds that we will have to raise taxes and cut benefits in order to keep Medicare going.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/21/2009 @ 12:49pm
Darla, You don't have enough grasp on history understand how adamantly Wall Street pretended to be against the Federal Reserve System's inception in the years leading up to December 1913. When in fact it was exactly their plan. You are too naive to even consider history might be repeating itself in the nationalized health care debate.
Pretending to oppose something to galvinize public and political opinion in the direction one wants is tried and true.
You are not looking at the incentives clearly. Trust me, the powers in the trillion dollar health care segment are.
And you are their little useful idiot. A role you should win a Tony for.
Posted by freiheit1 at 05/21/2009 @ 12:52pm
"Darla, you just keep inserting your head in the sand"
ok
"You are too naive to even consider history might be repeating itself in the nationalized health care debate"
ok
Posted by darladoon at 05/21/2009 @ 12:58pm
"To date, the total cost of war that has been allocated by Congress is $830.2 billion, with $657.3 to Iraq and $172.9 to Afghanistan."
that's chump change, right? 830 billion?
Posted by darladoon at 05/21/2009 @ 1:00pm
If the police and fire department are socialized and they save lives why not medical. Profiting from others suffering is morally wrong. If you don't want the government to run it make all insurace companys only be non profits..
Posted by MplsStyme at 05/21/2009 @ 1:04pm
darla,
i have found a statement way stupiderest than anything on this thread.
to whit:
I wouldn't like it either if ever there comes a time when US soldiers die for no good reason. Fortunately that has yet to occur in our history.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/20/2009 @ 1:52pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/21/2009 @ 1:10pm
frosty, wow. that's pretty amazing. and i'm the one with my "head in the sand" because i have this incredibly strange idea that universal health care might be the most cost-effective option.
this in light of the fact that we already spend more on healthcare than any other country on earth.
Posted by darladoon at 05/21/2009 @ 1:17pm
btw, i just read a study which concluded that of the 10 happiest countries on earth, all of them have the highest tax rates.
Posted by darladoon at 05/21/2009 @ 1:19pm
Well Darla, you should be really happy because you are going to get your "Universal" health care someday. That's definitely the most cost effective. I mean, let's look to other example of universal enterprises run by government. Education, for instance... Why it is so efficient even the President's children..., er, wait a sec...
Um, never mind. You're right though, everything the government runs is more "cost effective", even the wars currently run on 'chump change'. And there are TONS of other examples if I could just think of them.
Posted by freiheit1 at 05/21/2009 @ 1:25pm
And there are TONS of other examples if I could just think of them.
Posted by freiheit1 at 05/21/2009 @ 1:25pm
frei,
every human for herhis self only goes so far.
do you want private police services?
do you trust industry to regulate the sky?
ever called the fire department?
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/21/2009 @ 1:33pm
Posted by darladoon at 05/21/2009 @ 1:19pm
LOL! Yes, well that jibes with the study I read that the happiest americans are wealthy white males, so it must be true.
In fact, I'm writing a check for $1000 to the federal government right now just to cheer myself up! Or should I give that directly to you, Darla, to pay for the enevidable health care costs you will incur as a result of smoking marijuana for decades?
Posted by freiheit1 at 05/21/2009 @ 1:34pm
Never mind, I'm going to spend it on spelling lessons! :-)
Hey Frosty, government providing police and fire protection is appropriate and necessary. Interesting how cutting them is the first threat from our government in tight times, isn't it?
But providing health care is not a governmental responsibility. But like so much in our new world order of collectivism, I'm going to pay for it whether I like it or not!
I mean, really, our politicians have been so honorable with SS and Medicare funding, I'm certain they will manage universal care with the same integrity and compassion...
Posted by freiheit1 at 05/21/2009 @ 1:43pm
When you look at the Clinton try to revamp healthcare, the biggest mistake was excluding Congress, which really angered them. This time around, it is going to be debated. Will it pass? Let's assume yes and watch how the private insurance groups will hustle to maintain their position. That is what is needed. Giving in to them and all of their scare tactics should be loudly criticized as Mis-information. After reading the GOP plan, it was full of "assumptions" that private insurance would be available to all, but there were no details in which to compare "apples to apples". It was full of "should" and "could" and the meager tax rebate could be used for something other than health insurance if the private citizen decided against health insurance. That was all non-sense if in fact we as a country want to assure that all citizens have access to healthcare. You have to laugh out loud at their plan to have "sign-up kiosk"...which is akin to the "sub-prime" no verification process. If, according to the GOP plan, you can sign-up without a discussion, you won't reasonably know what you are really getting, as all you will be buying is something based only on COST of the plan, not what you will get in return. Sound familiar? This time around, the public is paying attention and will hopefully speak out!
Posted by afisher at 05/21/2009 @ 1:51pm
When you look at the Clinton try to revamp healthcare, the biggest mistake was excluding Congress, which really angered them. This time around, it is going to be debated. Will it pass? Let's assume yes and watch how the private insurance groups will hustle to maintain their position. That is what is needed. Giving in to them and all of their scare tactics should be loudly criticized as Mis-information. After reading the GOP plan, it was full of "assumptions" that private insurance would be available to all, but there were no details in which to compare "apples to apples". It was full of "should" and "could" and the meager tax rebate could be used for something other than health insurance if the private citizen decided against health insurance. That was all non-sense if in fact we as a country want to assure that all citizens have access to healthcare. You have to laugh out loud at their plan to have "sign-up kiosk"...which is akin to the "sub-prime" no verification process. If, according to the GOP plan, you can sign-up without a discussion, you won't reasonably know what you are really getting, as all you will be buying is something based only on COST of the plan, not what you will get in return. Sound familiar? This time around, the public is paying attention and will hopefully speak out!
Posted by afisher at 05/21/2009 @ 1:52pm
But providing health care is not a governmental responsibility.
Posted by freiheit1 at 05/21/2009 @ 1:43pm
why not?
to whit:
"and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
if the people, who supposedly are the government, want cheaper health care, they should get it.
an insurance company is collectivist, ¿now isn't it?
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/21/2009 @ 1:53pm
" ... But providing health care is not a governmental responsibility ..."
Posted by freiheit1 at 05/21/2009 @ 1:43pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Actually, in countries with substantially more successful health care systems and on-average healthier populations, providing health care is a governmental responsibility.
Posted by syfriendly at 05/21/2009 @ 2:00pm
if it's the governments responsibility to stop us from killing ourselves, using drugs, not wearing seat belts..and other life saving things...why isn't it also the governments responsibility to keep us healthy...
Posted by MplsStyme at 05/21/2009 @ 2:09pm
Actually, in countries with substantially more successful health care systems and on-average healthier populations, providing health care is a governmental responsibility.
Posted by syfriendly at 05/21/2009 @ 2:00pm
but not according to our constitution, and we are talking about our laws, not other nations.
Healthcare is not a right in this country as opposed to some other nations that have codified that as a right in their constitutions.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/21/2009 @ 2:09pm
"I mean, let's look to other example of universal enterprises run by government. Education, for instance"
tell us, oh wise one, how the government "runs" education?
"But like so much in our new world order of collectivism, I'm going to pay for it whether I like it or not!"
even with a fully private system, you are STILL going to have to pay for it whether you like it or not!
don't you get it? healthcare costs money whether you pay, the government pays, or your employer pays. someone has to pay.
Posted by darladoon at 05/21/2009 @ 2:10pm
"but not according to our constitution, and we are talking about our laws, not other nations"
for a man who supports pre-emptive war, torture, secret detention and wiretapping, you sure don't strike me as a person dedicated to the rule of law.
but when it comes to healthcare, you're all about the constitution.
Posted by darladoon at 05/21/2009 @ 2:12pm
"Healthcare is not a right in this country"
actually, healthcare is a right. but paying for it is, too.
Posted by darladoon at 05/21/2009 @ 2:15pm
tell us, antisocialist, where in the french constitution does it specify that everyone gets healthcare?
and tell us, where in the american constitution does it say the opposite?
Posted by darladoon at 05/21/2009 @ 2:15pm
Healthcare is not a right in this country as opposed to some other nations that have codified that as a right in their constitutions.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/21/2009 @ 2:09pm
well, you'd better fix that.
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/21/2009 @ 2:22pm
here you go frei,
sign the petition:
http://action.firedoglake.com/page/s/Fed1207
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/21/2009 @ 2:27pm
here's the french constitution.
health care is not mentioned.
http://www.servat.unibe.ch/icl/fr00000_.html
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/21/2009 @ 2:29pm
and tell us, where in the american constitution does it say the opposite?
Posted by darladoon at 05/21/2009 @ 2:15pm
Article 1, Section 8 enumerates the specific powers granted to Congress. There is nothing either in the body of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or the other Amendments to the Constitution providing a right to healthcare.
Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr. has proposed a constitutional amendment to establish healthcare as a right since he states himself that no such right currently exists.
The Founders stated that they did not see unenumerated rights to be within the authority of Congress.
"James Madison, the Father of our Constitution, clarified the authority of the federal government in the Federalist Papers #45:
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.
The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."
"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."
Thomas Jefferson,
"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions."
James Madison
Posted by antisocialist at 05/21/2009 @ 2:30pm
Posted by darladoon at 05/21/2009 @ 2:10pm
Hi Darla, You got that right, someone has to pay. But you did it again... you said the "government pays" Remember, the government doesn't ever pay for anything. The government doesn't have any money, Darla. Every penny it reallocates comes out of the pocket of a producer.
My goodness, do I believe that everyone should have affordable health care? Absolutely. I think capitalism would provide that option better and you think socialism is the answer.
-------------------------- "tell us, oh wise one, how the government "runs" education?"
To find out who runs education, Darla, just eMail your local, state and federal legistators and let them know you are withholding the % of your taxes allocated to public education. Just say you'd rather spend it on something else since you don't have any children. They'll be really cool about it I'm sure.
Posted by freiheit1 at 05/21/2009 @ 2:31pm
Now, please keep in mind when you're talking to Larry (antisocial) that EVERY social policy back to the Social Security Act of 1935, he opposes....
so it's not just the "new stuff"...heheh
(BTW, Larry, I KNOW you're not going to claim I'm "twisting your words on that"...are you?)
Posted by Mask at 05/21/2009 @ 2:32pm
Posted by antisocialist at 05/21/2009 @ 2:09pm | ignore this person | warn this person
The US constitution was created before the concept of a national health care system existed. Your idea furthermore that government-paid health care is unconstitutional - I've never seen you make that claim, amongst all the insane claims you make, but you will have made that claim because it is necessary to support the conclusion that you already have that you hate anything other Republican government - is poppycock as well. If you have an idea that government-paid health care is hard-core "socialism", that is bullshit too. Finally, if you have some looney religious objection to government-paid health care, that is bullshit, also.
Other countries with superior health care and on-average healthier populations have government-paid national systems that have ups and downs but are in general much more cost-efficient than our system and provide better care and service overall than our system. This is reality. This is reality. This is reality. We don't have to live in your looney-tunes dementia-universe even if that makes you unhappy. You can babble endlessly about "socialism" and cherry-pick quotations from various founding fathers (and mothers, where they exist) and try to twist them into 4-dimensional space-time wormholes, and you're still just babbling. Reality is clear: national government single-payer systems work better. The history is clear: our current system exists because the priority was first and foremost to create a profit mechanism for big business and second to reduce costs of providing health care by providing less health care, which our system does. Our system has since driven large companies to the brink of bankruptcy, and underperformed in providing care.
Posted by syfriendly at 05/21/2009 @ 2:35pm
tell us, antisocialist, where in the french constitution does it specify that everyone gets healthcare?
Posted by darladoon at 05/21/2009 @ 2:15pm
France and the rest of the members of the EU agree to abide by the EU Charter
<Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union
ARTICLE 35 HEALTH CARE
Everyone has the right of access to preventive health care and the right to benefit from medical treatment under the conditions established by national laws and practices. A high level of human health protection shall be ensured in the definition and implementation of all Union policies and activities>
http://tinyurl.com/qh6uav
Posted by antisocialist at 05/21/2009 @ 2:37pm
Clearly, however, health care is not a natural right as the founders or John Locke would have understood it. In their view, natural rights exist prior to the formation of government. Since there is no government in the pre-political state of nature, there cannot be a right to government-supplied health care in the state of nature. One has the right to speak one's mind, to defend oneself, and to acquire property in the state of nature, but no one has the right to a free checkup at the National Health Service in the state of nature, because there is no National Health Service.
Nonetheless, perhaps health care could be regarded as necessary to effect the natural right to life or the pursuit of happiness, and consequently, it should be treated as a civil right. This formulation, too, is greatly flawed.
The first problem is that even if the right to life led to a positive government obligation to provide health care, that right would logically be restricted to medical actions essential to preserve life, especially emergency measures. Yet medical professionals already provide life-saving emergency care in practice, without a grand declaration of rights; in any event, such a limited guarantee is far from what policy activists have in mind. Likewise, if a civil right to health care derived from the pursuit of happiness, one would have to show that it is positively correlated--perhaps even necessary--to the achievement of happiness. Yet this conclusion is surprisingly difficult to support. There are, as it turns out, a number of surveys that attempt to measure the happiness of people around the world. Residents of the U.S. tend to rank around 15th among the 90 countries typically surveyed.
continued
Posted by antisocialist at 05/21/2009 @ 2:39pm
Is Healthcare a Right continued
<In recent surveys, 85% of Americans say they are personally happy or very happy. Consistently, a number of countries with universal health care (such as Denmark and Norway) rank ahead of the U.S., and a larger number of countries with universal health care (such as Great Britain, France, and Germany) lag considerably behind the U.S. in happiness. On balance, research tends to show that countries reporting the greatest happiness have political freedom, not universal health care, in common.
The founders, for their part, already named--in the Bill of Rights and several other constitutional provisions, such as the guarantee of habeas corpus--the civil rights they thought necessary for the execution of natural rights. There is no evidence that they considered provision of health care necessary for realizing natural rights, though medical care certainly existed in the late 18th century and was valued, as it is today, for its capacity to prolong life. Indeed, there is no evidence that the founders considered governmental provision of food to be a civil right, though its connection to the maintenance of life was, then as now, more direct and more constant than that of health care.
The great danger of health-care-as-a-right is that it threatens to supplant the American republic's key political principles. Accepting a positive government obligation to fund social services claimed as a matter of right would lead inexorably to government without limits. How could one fence off claims on government resources or demands for the exercise of government power, if the right to the pursuit of happiness, for example, became a font of positive economic rights?
http://tinyurl.com/qfhot9
Posted by antisocialist at 05/21/2009 @ 2:42pm
frei,
u.s. education is so messed up BECAUSE it is funded locally.
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/21/2009 @ 2:42pm
http://tinyurl.com/qfhot9
Posted by antisocialist at 05/21/2009 @ 2:42pm
BTW, for those who looked. Larry's Cut & Paste came from the "Claremont Institute"...naturally a conservative think tank, but noted THIS interesting part in their wikipedia write-up (Noting Larry posted it)...
"Uncommonly for a conservative organization, the Claremont Institute tends to reject the constitutional philosophy of strict constructionism and often publishes material that is critical of conservative strict constructionists such as Robert Bork, William Rehnquist, and Antonin Scalia."
CI not a fan of Bork, Larry????
Posted by Mask at 05/21/2009 @ 2:53pm
Posted by syfriendly at 05/21/2009 @ 2:35pm
The Framers were cognizant of the timelessness of human nature, Sy.
Doesn't matter what contemporary idea you plug in, like universal health care, or pre-emptive warfare.
The Framers didn't need to know specifics about either because they knew the human capacity for evil and wrote a document that safeguarded liberty against that evil.
What you propose, and the course followed by socialistic governments throughout the world has proven, is that eventually absolute power corrupts absolutely. Look to the current situation with Social Security and Medicare to get insight to the future of a universal health care program in the US.
Why do you trust politicians so much? What's wrong with you dude? Can't you see our Constitution was drafted on the premise thay are never to be trusted?
Posted by freiheit1 at 05/21/2009 @ 2:54pm
Posted by antisocialist at 05/21/2009 @ 2:42pm
A breath of fresh air... thank you!
Posted by freiheit1 at 05/21/2009 @ 2:56pm
Why do you trust politicians so much? What's wrong with you dude? Can't you see our Constitution was drafted on the premise thay are never to be trusted?
Posted by freiheit1 at 05/21/2009 @ 2:54pm
Because they all regurgitate the same mantra.
they don't care that the constitution doesn't permit their agendas. Syfriendly' s comments are a perfect example. he made it clear that the ends justifies the means in this regard. Anything that the left considers worthwhile is constitutional.
They don't care that the founders specifically addressed future unconstitutional expansions of the Federal Govt by ensuring what the terms meant would be clearly understood by all future generations.
So when Madison and Jefferson clearly state that the Fed has no right to misuse the term general welfare, they just shrug it off.
And those like Mask, who can never bring himself to actuall debate the merits of an issue, will go into his usual straw man arguments trying to sidetrack into an attack on a source or something completely unrelated.
Finally, even though liberal members of Congress like Jesse Jackson Jr and Pete Stark have introduced Constitutional Amendments to guarantee a right of healthcare, because they acknowledge that none exists, the liberals simply hold their hands over their ears and eyes and pretend the facts are not there.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/21/2009 @ 3:06pm
And, hey, our taxes would go up if we got universla health care. Funny how the same morons who don't seem to complain about spending $500 or more for health insurance think it would be excessive to pay the government even $50 a month in taxes for health care coverage.
Any idiots out there think their taxes would increase by over $5,000 per year if the government provided a single payer system? Oh, yeah, and that's not to mention co-pays and the substantial amount not covered by insurance. The average cost of health care PER PERSON in this country is well over $6,000 per year - and that includes everyone who doesn't have insurance.
The major cause of bankruptcy in the US is health care costs, even for people with insurance. We are supposed to be the richest country on earth, and we treat our own citizens as if they are resources to enrich the already obscenely wealthy and powerful.
I work for the school system, which is a state-wide program. It would be over $600 for just me and my husband if I didn't have - gasp! government funded health care from the state.
Posted by LeeAnnG at 05/21/2009 @ 3:36pm
Posted by antisocialist at 05/21/2009 @ 3:06pm
I just find it interesting you citing material from a think tank that...
criticizes Robert Bork.
Whom you defended so vehemently on this blog just a few days ago!
BTW, Larry, why argue the merits of a potential FUTURE Government entitlement with you, when by your own standards, we'd still be arguing Social Security for the last 75 years?????
Posted by Mask at 05/21/2009 @ 3:40pm
I just find it interesting you citing material from a think tank that...
criticizes Robert Bork.
Whom you defended so vehemently on this blog just a few days ago!
BTW, Larry, why argue the merits of a potential FUTURE Government entitlement with you, when by your own standards, we'd still be arguing Social Security for the last 75 years?????
Posted by Mask at 05/21/2009 @ 3:40pm
So what? I cite material from Democracy Now and Counterpunch also.
Why is the source a greater issue than the material?
Posted by antisocialist at 05/21/2009 @ 4:04pm
Posted by freiheit1 at 05/21/2009 @ 2:54pm | ignore this person | warn this person
I don't know about proving absolute power corrupts absolutely or anything like that I was just pointing out to the reality-challenged that other countries with more successful health care systems than ours have the government paid version, and unless you are trying to tell me the United Kingdom is some sort of totalitarian dictatorship I don't think you can argue that absolute power has corrupted absolutely there. However, their health care system is better than ours.
I was also pointing out to that one particularly deranged individual, the religious maniac, that any sort of "constitutional" argument against a health care system is just bullshit. He can feel free to try to live in his own private universe, but the reality is that much of the western, developed world appears to have resolved the health care conundrum better than we have, and they haven't slid into anarchy or dictatorships yet. They do have less money lost to health care, and on-average healthier populations, though.
Posted by syfriendly at 05/21/2009 @ 4:15pm
"to pay for the enevidable health care costs you will incur as a result of smoking marijuana for decades?"
i don't smoke marijuana; i eat it, and very infrequently.
"Can't you see our Constitution was drafted on the premise thay are never to be trusted?"
ah, but we should trust the CIA.
Posted by darladoon at 05/21/2009 @ 4:18pm
Posted by freiheit1 at 05/21/2009 @ 2:54pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Furthermore, I don't recall saying that I "trust politicians so much" or anything stupid like that. You are playing the silly game of "have you stopped beating your wife yet?". I could just as easily ask you why you "trust corporate insurance executives so much".
I guess the real point is that major studies have been produced showing that a) the US economy is losing to its own health care system and that b) other notable countries have systems that outperform ours, that we could emulate, and the only opposition that is left to instituting a good system is a combination of rich wealthy insurance and pharmaceutical interests (why DO you trust corporate insurance executives so much, anyway?) and some demented weirdos like that one guy posting here think there is some sort of constitutional problem with instituting a health care system.
Posted by syfriendly at 05/21/2009 @ 4:19pm
Posted by darladoon at 05/21/2009 @ 4:18pm
Huh?
Posted by freiheit1 at 05/21/2009 @ 4:21pm
Please don't be fooled. Big pharma and the major health care providers would love nothing more than nationalized health care. It would give them monopoly control backed by the force of government. It would eliminate pesky competition. And lead to even greater profit margins.
osted by freiheit1 at 05/21/2009 @ 12:27pm | ignore this person | warn this person
brilliant.
the people will more readily believe a big lie...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/21/2009 @ 4:45pm
Why do you trust politicians so much? What's wrong with you dude? Can't you see our Constitution was drafted on the premise thay are never to be trusted?
Posted by freiheit1 at 05/21/2009 @ 2:54pm
There is a dichotomy of values here. One side is to trust the corporations/insurance companies to do what is best. Free market. The republicans generally feel that free market dynamics are the best way to deal with issues that may arise and that government really only serves to interfere.
The other side does not trust the free market to protect the interests of the people from the greed of corporations and see a need for government programs and regulations.
What really works best is a balance between these two philosphies. However, in the case of healthcare people really don't have a choice. The free market dynamics really are not at play. In most market dynamics, if you don't like the product, you don't have to buy it. However in the case of healthcare, you really don't have a choice. It is really a price tag on a persons ability to have life, liberty, and pursue happiness. Because if you don't have health you don't have happiness, and may not have life, and if the costs of healthcare result in bankruptcy, or indentured servitude to pay your bills, you don't have liberty. I believe for these reasons in the case of healthcare there is a very strong argument for intense government regulation or outright control.
Posted by Extraneous at 05/21/2009 @ 4:46pm
Posted by syfriendly at 05/21/2009 @ 4:19pm
Sy, lobbying for a government supervised health care IS putting your trust in politicians.
I don't trust corporate insurance executives either, but at least I can predict their incentives and motivations. This is not the case with politicians. Secondly, at least in a free market (which we don't really have in this sector currently) as consumers we are free to switch and go with the insurance company we deign most trustworthy, thus enhancing the incentives of that company to perform as we wish, not the other way around. We don't have that liberty with a collectivist system.
Your assertion that our healthcare system is out performed by socialized programs is also debatable, with stats and info from both sides of the issue being heavily biased. I also don't see any evidence in my personal and professional life of family, friends or colleagues traveling outside of the US for ANY health care treatment at all because it is better. I have had one friend leave the US for treatment, because of US GOVERNMENT regulations against the radical course of cancer treatment he'd hoped would save his life.
Bottom line, we would both like to see an affordable, efficient, and dynamic health care system in the US. We just differ in the means of delivery of that service to the widest base of our fellow citizens.
I can't get rid of the sneaking suspicion that you, and others here, are really less about the actual health care strategy specifically and just more about the collectivist aspect of the issue. At the core is your lack of understanding and appreciation for our Constitution. Your satisfaction is government control of the means of production. Because you actually own no aspect of that production personally.
Posted by freiheit1 at 05/21/2009 @ 4:47pm
Posted by Extraneous at 05/21/2009 @ 4:46pm
But can't you see the flaw in your argument? "Because if you don't have health you don't have happiness, and may not have life, and if the costs of healthcare result in bankruptcy, or indentured servitude to pay your bills, you don't have liberty."
Well then, what about lifestyle illness? AIDS comes foremost to mind. Should the government then make male homosexuality illegal, so those bills don't exist? How about obesity? What do we do with the proportionate costs of care for fat people. Smokers, both pot and tobacco? What about the sprains and breaks for those exercise freaks? What about alcoholics and drug users, injured criminals?
Are you suggesting then we all go into servitude to pay for their liberty rather than them exercising personal responsibility?
Or, do you contend that is all of our responsibility through the State? Because if you do, watch for the State to start getting tough on your liberties.
Posted by freiheit1 at 05/21/2009 @ 4:58pm
Posted by freiheit1 at 05/21/2009 @ 4:47pm | ignore this person | warn this person
No, its not debatable that the health care systems in for example the UK are outperforming ours. The health care system here is breaking households economically, businesses economically, and threatens the health of the national economy overall. Furthermore, our population on-average is not the healthiest in the developing world according to the various metrics, not by a lot. Conversely, the health care systems in for example the UK or Canada, while they have their drawbacks, are not economically damaging individuals, businesses, and the national economy, and furthermore, the populations in these places are on-average healthier. This is not debatable.
Posted by syfriendly at 05/21/2009 @ 5:00pm
"What the private healthcare lobby understands that has them so frightened now is that public healthcare would be preferable because it would be better and cheaper"
Amazing what people will LIE about when they think everyone except them will pay for it or somehow magically the "rich" and "corperations" will suffer somehow for it!
Posted by comancheamerican at 05/21/2009 @ 5:01pm
Posted by freiheit1 at 05/21/2009 @ 4:47pm | ignore this person | warn this person
And to be honest, I am not here talking about this issue because I care about some sort of "collectivist" horse puckey. I am here because, as a middle class educated professional operating with a comparatively large compensation package relative to what might be typical, I just spent three days with a fever of 102+, symptoms of massive head cold and flu, delirium from fever, heavy congestion and body aches, during a swine flu epidemic, without going to the hospital, because I cannot get an appointment on a time scale which is fast enough, and if I go to the emergency room and I am not admitted to in-patient care, I am billed by an insurance corporation for all costs. Furthermore, I regularly avoid any form of health care, because my employer offers one of those trendy new "high deductible" plans and the deductible is so fucking high that I'd have to get shot or get hit by a car before the costs would start to get somewhat alleviated by what the insurance maggots refer to as their "co-payment". So the last two knee injuries, the fact that I am developing RSI, the fact that my wisdom teeth need removing, all sorts of conditions and what-not ... I don't go to a doctor. Why? Because the insurance maggots, whom my employer has to pay for my "coverage" - and I don't think my employer should have to do that - have gamed my personal health to their creepy little profit advantages. And if I choose to "augment" my employer health care with my own private health care, then I can a) be feeding yet more fucking money to the insurance maggots and then b) answer the letters that come after I go to a doctor from each company fobbing the bill off on the other but not paying.
Posted by syfriendly at 05/21/2009 @ 5:09pm
Posted by syfriendly at 05/21/2009 @ 5:09pm
"I don't go to a doctor. Why? Because the insurance maggots, whom my employer has to pay for my "coverage" - and I don't think my employer should have to do that - have gamed my personal health to their creepy little profit advantages."
Wow, I have no response to that and the dysfunction evident in the rest of your post. Good luck to you.
Posted by freiheit1 at 05/21/2009 @ 5:19pm
Are you suggesting then we all go into servitude to pay for their liberty rather than them exercising personal responsibility?
Posted by freiheit1 at 05/21/2009 @ 4:58pm
So you would rather see children die from luekemia, mothers and fathers die of untreated cancer, hard working familes go bankrupt. Instead of seeing someone who has made a bad decision get treatment? Rather callous, don't ya think? What servitude are you talking about anyways? My annual insurance premiums are over $5k and that does not include co-pays or deductibles. How much do you think your taxes would change under a single payer system?
Make homosexuality illegal? WTF are you talking about? That is beyond rediculous, at most increased funding of sexual education, or other health services, heaven forbid we see more funding for drug addiciton programs. You are taking it to an unrealistic extremes, and you say my argument is flawed. Your argument is fantasy at best and fear mongering at worst.
Posted by Extraneous at 05/21/2009 @ 5:20pm
Posted by freiheit1 at 05/21/2009 @ 5:19pm | ignore this person | warn this person
There is no "dysfunction". People are angry about the situation I describe to you, because they have similar situations. The situation I describe to you is why people who work for a living are frequently angry about the health care system, and the needless costs it burdens us all with so that insurance corporation big wigs can make lots and lots of money. That's why there is such a focus on the health care system, you see, people are angry about it for real reasons. And if you see some sort of "dysfunction" in that, well, then, you are out of touch with the reality that a whole lot of people face.
That, in turn, could explain why it is you favor the current system, which, if there was an appropriate use of the word "dysfunction" in our little dialog here, would be the appropriate subject for apt description.
Posted by syfriendly at 05/21/2009 @ 5:30pm
Posted by Extraneous at 05/21/2009 @ 5:20pm
No, let me try again because you aren't getting it. My point is that if the State alone bears the responsibility of health care (as you argue for, "intense government regulation or outright control" of health care) the control of costs will lead to infringement on our individual liberties.
How you turn that into characterizing me as someone who would "rather see children die from luekemia, mothers and fathers die of untreated cancer, hard working familes go bankrupt. Instead of seeing someone who has made a bad decision get treatment?" is typical of liberals. And I'm really tired of it.
Putting government in charge has historically never made anything more cost effective or efficient than the private sector can provide. Again, I'm not anti-government. I just want it to stay inside it's Constitutional boundaries. Provision of universal health care isn't Constitutional, it is a power grab. And the insurance companies and big pharma are behind it.
Posted by freiheit1 at 05/21/2009 @ 5:36pm
"Anyone who's been watching has heard the data that have the insurance profiteers so scared. A government-run plan, with no need for profits for Wall Street or bonuses to retain CEOs -- a plan run only to deliver healthcare for the public -- would cut the cost of healthcare. Period"
An obvious LIE that resides in the deep dank dark hole known as the bottomless pit of Medicare and Medicaid which is the ultimate proof of the future of and failure of any government administrated healthcare plan!
Posted by comancheamerican at 05/21/2009 @ 5:38pm
Sy, I have an HSA too after moving from a Kaiser plan last year to save money. I'd love to have all of that for free.
I'm not a proponent of the current systems in place, but believe the majority of the problems we face are due to political intervention and not due to "greed." Government regulations, politically motivated, shackle innovation and efficiency.
You want more government control, I want less. We both share a goal, I think, of a better system. You just want to make it all a Government monopoly and I can't for the life of me understand why.
Posted by freiheit1 at 05/21/2009 @ 5:45pm
"The fact is, Obama's healthcare plan wouldn't force anyone to choose the not-for-profit option."
Nice "half LIE" typical of arguments to socialize medicine! Who would want to continue paying for good healthcare when they could pay nothing and get the slow response mediocre rationed healthcare consumed with fraud provided by government with exponentially INCREASING tax payer dollars!
Posted by comancheamerican at 05/21/2009 @ 5:50pm
Posted by freiheit1 at 05/21/2009 @ 5:45pm | ignore this person | warn this person
I accept that you are not a proponent of the current system which changes things (thanks for clarifying) as I am particularly frustrated with reading some of the rantings of people who really remain mired in the fantastical portions of the Republican worldview (cure: read less of the rantings) but I encourage you to think that maybe your distrust of politicians might be because of their greed. Politicians do things to pad their pockets and to advance their careers. Hence, greed is the problem, whether you place it in politicians (politicians instrumented the current system, passing into law what corporate lobbyists continue to ask for) or wealthy private interests and corporate executives (who pay lobbyists to author legislation that paid-off politicians then pass into law).
What I want is to not pay bill after bill after bill on even the tiniest health care procedure, or to have to imagine taking a health insurance corporation to court because they summarily refuse to cover something their plan says they cover, because they send a form letter with legal mumbo jumbo on it and refuse to pay, or that they refuse to pay a bill because they want to find out if i have other insurance first that they can fob off the bill on. I am sick of "deductibles". British and Canadian citizens don't pay "deductibles". I am sick of "co-payments". I am sick of my employer being strangled because employers have to provide health care for employees (this is one of the stupidest fucking states of affairs I have ever seen emerge on Earth -- employers pay for employees health care?! Is this the feudal system?!) and I am sick of my friends who don't work for corporations working without any health care.
Posted by syfriendly at 05/21/2009 @ 5:54pm
Since when does the free market work for us? You know, US, the taxpayers. Folks like William McGuire (CEO) of United Health Group are more than happy to have taxpayers bickering over healthcare financing while he rakes in his $BILLION+ bonuses on top of his $100million salary, while we, tax paying citizens continue to pay to make his cushy life possible through insurance premiums so that we can avoid financial ruin or unnecessary death and suffering in the event that we or a loved one should become ill. I would rather pay more in taxes than to continue to line the pockets of insurance co. CEO's. The insurance industry is a for profit, parasitic business that has nothing to do with healthcare. Healthcare is provided by doctors,nurses and other health practioners. The U.S. spends more per capita on for profit "healthcare" than countries with government sponsored programs, yet we're nowhere near #1 for our overall health or outcomes. The irony is that a single payer plan WILL cost taxpayers LESS than our current system. Anyone who would rather put money into the hands of these parasitic insurance companies, and not into a pot that would benefit all Amercicans should have their head checked.
Posted by forthekids at 05/21/2009 @ 6:24pm
Sy,
Labor is a commodity. Healthcare provided by companies is done so as an incentive to get the best and brightest employees in a competitive labor market.
I agree, no company should be forced to provide benefits, but they should remain free to do so if it gives them an edge on the competition.
Posted by freiheit1 at 05/21/2009 @ 6:43pm
from the WHO:
"The U.S. health system spends a higher portion of its gross domestic product than any other country but ranks 37 out of 191 countries according to its performance, the report finds. The United Kingdom, which spends just six percent of GDP on health services, ranks 18 th . Several small countries – San Marino, Andorra, Malta and Singapore are rated close behind second- placed Italy."
Posted by darladoon at 05/21/2009 @ 7:31pm
"The U.S. health system spends a higher portion of its gross domestic product than any other country but ranks 37 out of 191 countries according to its performance, the report finds. The United Kingdom, which spends just six percent of GDP on health services, ranks 18 th . Several small countries – San Marino, Andorra, Malta and Singapore are rated close behind second- placed Italy."
Posted by darladoon at 05/21/2009 @ 7:31pm
Irrelevant.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/21/2009 @ 7:47pm
Why are WHO statistics irrelevant?
Posted by forthekids at 05/21/2009 @ 8:07pm
We need total single-payer right now. Any campaign which seeks to derail this initiative is a campaign to kill and maim Americans. It is clear that the way our doctors and nurses practice health care is superb. The problem is private insurance. These so-called insurance companies are a direct threat to the safety of Americans. The thousands of horrific stories of greed at the expense of sick people speaks for itself.
Posted by Milhaus at 05/21/2009 @ 8:08pm
Why are WHO statistics irrelevant?
Posted by forthekids at 05/21/2009 @ 8:07pm |
It was a reference to himself. Don't bother trying to argue with him. I'm starting to think he is paid by someone to do this. Repudiating factual numbers is not the act of a sane person, or even one that wants to maintain any shred of credibility.
Posted by Milhaus at 05/21/2009 @ 8:22pm
The government screws-up everything they involve themselves in, healthcare should not get a free pass.
Fuck it up to uncle.
Colonoscopy by a gubment employee anyone?
Posted by bleedingheart at 05/21/2009 @ 9:26pm
the only intergovernmental body to do an exhaustive and objective study, the WHO, compiles "irrelevant" stastistics, says The Great Reverand.
Posted by darladoon at 05/21/2009 @ 10:10pm
Getting your health statistics from WHO is like getting your military statistics from the Pentagon.
Do you believe the Pentagon doesn't have an agenda Darla?
Posted by freiheit1 at 05/21/2009 @ 10:39pm
"Pretending to oppose something to galvinize public and political opinion in the direction one wants is tried and true."--freitheit1
"Only the Messiah would deny being the Messiah."
Posted by onthehelm at 05/21/2009 @ 11:29pm
Why do you trust politicians so much?
Posted by freiheit1 at 05/21/2009 @ 2:54pm
why do you trust businessmen so much?
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/21/2009 @ 11:44pm
I can't get rid of the sneaking suspicion that you, and others here, are really less about the actual health care strategy specifically and just more about the collectivist aspect of the issue.
Posted by freiheit1 at 05/21/2009 @ 4:47pm
that's nuts.
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/21/2009 @ 11:50pm
frei,
these "commies" just want to save money.
my brother lives in a province with government run car insurance.
ours is private.
he pays ONE QUARTER what i do.
'nuff said.
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/21/2009 @ 11:59pm
and the deductible is so fucking high that I'd have to get shot
Posted by syfriendly at 05/21/2009 @ 5:09pm
go to a national park next time you get sick.
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/22/2009 @ 12:00am
I'm starting to think he [rev. larry cluster] is paid by someone to do this.
Posted by Milhaus at 05/21/2009 @ 8:22pm
yep.
he does it for the prophet.
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/22/2009 @ 12:03am
Frosty,
I don't really trust businessmen any more than I trust politicians and neither should any of us.
The difference between businessmen and politicians is easy. The motivations and incentives of businessmen are predictable and easy to see. Shareholder value, market share, profit margins. Businessmen create wealth.
Politicians on the other hand are unpredictable and their incentives and motivations are often hidden. (Go ahead, pick your own out of the dozens of examples we can all cite.) Politicians redistribute wealth.
Consumers have power over businessmen as long as their businesses have no governmental collusion. I don't like a product, I shop elsewhere, as long as cartels and monopolies are correctly policed by government.
So, no, I don't trust businessmen. But I believe they pale in comparison to the outright fraud against the intrerests of the American people we see in Congress on an daily basis.
Posted by freiheit1 at 05/22/2009 @ 12:09am
AIDS comes foremost to mind. Should the government then make male homosexuality illegal, so those bills don't exist?
•• what about the male homosexual beat to a pulp by thugs? should he not get health care if he's not covered?
How about obesity? What do we do with the proportionate costs of care for fat people.
•• how about policemen? isn't that a lifestyle choice?
Smokers, both pot and tobacco?
•• what about waitresses? they inhale a lot of smoke and can't afford health insurance.
What about the sprains and breaks for those exercise freaks?
•• what about people hit by cars?
What about alcoholics and drug users,
•• what about people hit by meteorites?
injured criminals?
•• actually, prisoners get health care.
Are you suggesting then we all go into servitude to pay for their liberty rather than them exercising personal responsibility?
•• oh, yeah, canadians have gone into servitude....
Or, do you contend that is all of our responsibility through the State?
•• you are extremely selfish.
Because if you do, watch for the State to start getting tough on your liberties.
•• oh, yeah. the clamp sure has come down here.
Posted by freiheit1 at 05/21/2009 @ 4:58pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/22/2009 @ 12:10am
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/21/2009 @ 11:59pm
Good for your brother Frosty, but SOMEONE is paying the difference.
Goodnight.
Posted by freiheit1 at 05/22/2009 @ 12:11am
oh boy......
I don't really trust businessmen any more than I trust politicians and neither should any of us.
•• so if you don't trust either, why do you subsequently say you trust businessmen more?
The difference between businessmen and politicians is easy.
•• not for them.
The motivations and incentives of businessmen are predictable and easy to see.
•• yeah, deny you coverage.
Shareholder value, market share, profit margins.
•• yeah, deny you coverage.
Businessmen create wealth.
•• no, only the earth creates wealth. well, the sun, too.
Politicians on the other hand are unpredictable and their incentives and motivations are often hidden.
•• unlike businessmen. i see......
(Go ahead, pick your own out of the dozens of examples we can all cite.)
•• aig, citi, gs.....
Politicians redistribute wealth.
•• good. humans are greedy mofos..
Consumers have power over businessmen as long as their businesses have no governmental collusion.
•• this is nonsense.
I don't like a product, I shop elsewhere, as long as cartels and monopolies are correctly policed by government.
•• i like our health care system. so do the numerous cancer survivors i know.
So, no, I don't trust businessmen.
•• except for when you're sick.
But I believe they pale in comparison to the outright fraud against the intrerests of the American people we see in Congress on an daily basis.
•• well, stand up for your constitution!
Posted by freiheit1 at 05/22/2009 @ 12:09am
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/22/2009 @ 12:19am
night, frei.
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/22/2009 @ 12:19am
100
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/22/2009 @ 12:20am
"So, no, I don't trust businessmen. But I believe they pale in comparison to the outright fraud against the intrerests of the American people we see in Congress on an daily basis."
i can't see how you can cleanly separate business interests and political interests, what with the powerful lobbying presence on capitol hill.
Posted by darladoon at 05/22/2009 @ 12:26am
"Getting your health statistics from WHO is like getting your military statistics from the Pentagon."
(insanely stupid quote of the day)
Posted by darladoon at 05/22/2009 @ 12:27am
certainly, freiheit, you and i can agree with this statement of digby today:
"Keep in mind that when everyone starts moaning and groaning about how we can't afford health care and we have to cut back on education and other "entitlements," the federal reserve will still be writing blank checks to major players in the financial system and nobody knows where its going or why they're doing it. And they will get away with it unless somebody besides some right wing cranks demand it."
Posted by darladoon at 05/22/2009 @ 12:55am
Why are WHO statistics irrelevant?
Posted by forthekids at 05/21/2009 @ 8:07pm
Because as I pointed out recently on another thread, not all nations abide by the WHO definitions and terminology.
For example, many nations that show better infant mortality rates than the US achieve that by not reporting deaths in the first day as a live birth.
Furthermore, unless costs like property, wages, utilities, basic supplies are relatively equal, there is no true comparison of numbers.
How many 6 figure income nurses do you think those other nations have?
Do any of you think that liability insurance premiums are even close to comparable for health professionals and hospitals in those other nations (if they even have to have any)?
Posted by antisocialist at 05/22/2009 @ 10:14am
Posted by darladoon at 05/22/2009 @ 12:55am
Yep, we can agree on that.
Posted by freiheit1 at 05/22/2009 @ 10:34am
For example, many nations that show better infant mortality rates than the US achieve that by not reporting deaths in the first day as a live birth.---------Posted by antisocialist at 05/22/2009 @ 10:14am
Seems when that infant mortality question came up before you said that, but then couldn't tell us the "real" ranking of the US in terms of infant mortality....what is it?
Posted by Mask at 05/22/2009 @ 11:32am
Seems when that infant mortality question came up before you said that, but then couldn't tell us the "real" ranking of the US in terms of infant mortality....what is it?
Posted by Mask at 05/22/2009 @ 11:32am
This is not rocket science Mask. I said (if you remember) that a true ranking cannot be obtained unless everyone uses the same criteria. Anything done outside of that is purely subjective speculation by all sides.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/22/2009 @ 11:56am
Posted by antisocialist at 05/22/2009 @ 11:56am
So you KNOW it's "not as bad as the libs say"....but you DON'T KNOW how "much better" it really is?
Did your original source for the idea that it was "not counting live births after one day" know? Maybe you could ask them?
Posted by Mask at 05/22/2009 @ 12:02pm
So you KNOW it's "not as bad as the libs say"....but you DON'T KNOW how "much better" it really is?
Did your original source for the idea that it was "not counting live births after one day" know? Maybe you could ask them?
Posted by Mask at 05/22/2009 @ 12:02pm
It seems apparent from your response that the actual facts are not as important to you an the ability to continue criticizing the US, even when the data is disputable.
The top 2 factors in infant mortality rates in the US are premature births and low birth weight.
The US leads the world in premature births. One of the factors for that is that our birth rates are higher than in places like Europe and we attempt to deliver and preserve the lives of children born at 1/3 the weight of most European countries.
As shown before, most of these countries with low infant mortality rates do not count children who die the first day which is common unfortunately in premmies.
<American advances in medical treatment now make it possible to save babies who would surely have died only a few decades ago. Until recently, very-low-birth-weight babies, those weighing less than 3 pounds, almost always died. Now some of these babies survive with the help of breathing assistance and other recent inventions.
While such vulnerable babies may live with advanced medical assistance and technology, low-birth-weight babies (weighing less than 5.5 pounds) recently had an infant mortality rate 20 times higher than heavier babies, according to the WHO. And these deaths count as infant deaths even though most would have been counted as stillbirths if they hadn't received the gift of life, however transitory.>
http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=3848
Posted by antisocialist at 05/22/2009 @ 1:08pm
Posted by antisocialist at 05/22/2009 @ 10:14am
Furthermore, unless costs like property, wages, utilities, basic supplies are relatively equal, there is no true comparison of numbers. How many 6 figure income nurses do you think those other nations have? Do any of you think that liability insurance premiums are even close to comparable for health professionals and hospitals in those other nations (if they even have to have any)?
Isn't that the point? Our standard of living is higher, our wages better (6figure income nurses?), our $expenditure far exceeds other nations- shouldn't these variables more than make up for the so called discrepancy in reporting infant mortality that you speak of. What does liability insurance have to do with infant mortality?
Posted by forthekids at 05/22/2009 @ 1:24pm
Furthermore, unless costs like property, wages, utilities, basic supplies are relatively equal, there is no true comparison of numbers. How many 6 figure income nurses do you think those other nations have? Do any of you think that liability insurance premiums are even close to comparable for health professionals and hospitals in those other nations (if they even have to have any)?
Isn't that the point? Our standard of living is higher, our wages better (6figure income nurses?), our $expenditure far exceeds other nations- shouldn't these variables more than make up for the so called discrepancy in reporting infant mortality that you speak of. What does liability insurance have to do with infant mortality?
Posted by forthekids at 05/22/2009 @ 1:24pm
Stay in context. That referred to the point about why we spend more than other nations. I addressed 2 points that are related. the cost of healthcare and the issue of performance with the example of infant mortality
So, the cost was in specific response to Darla where you and others questioned my statement of irrelevance.
<The U.S. health system spends a higher portion of its gross domestic product than any other country but ranks 37 out of 191 countries according to its performance, the report finds. The United Kingdom, which spends just six percent of GDP on health services, ranks 18 th . Several small countries – San Marino, Andorra, Malta and Singapore are rated close behind second- placed Italy."
Posted by darladoon at 05/21/2009 @ 7:31pm
Irrelevant.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/21/2009 @ 7:47pm
Posted by antisocialist at 05/22/2009 @ 1:39pm
EGAD!
"Health care in Israel is both universal and compulsory, and is administered by a small number of organizations with funding from the government. All Israeli citizens are entitled to the same Uniform Benefits Package, regardless of which organization they are a member of, and treatment under this package is funded for all citizens regardless of their financial means."
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/22/2009 @ 2:32pm
# 210 Israel: 4.28 deaths/1,000 live births 2008
# 185 United States: 6.3 deaths/1,000 live births 2008
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/22/2009 @ 2:34pm
unless antisocialist can link to a better study that the WHO's, then his words really don't hold much water.
until then.....
Posted by darladoon at 05/23/2009 @ 8:23pm
Posted by darladoon at 05/23/2009 @ 8:23pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Once a marxist supporter always a marxist supporter. What other opinions can a lifelong entitlement reciever have?
Posted by BigPasture at 05/24/2009 @ 09:38am
" What other opinions can a lifelong entitlement reciever have?"
we are all entitled to received what we have given, so i really don't know what your point is.
Posted by darladoon at 05/24/2009 @ 12:16pm
Why don't Hospitals have price lists? Ya know like its $1500 for a tonsilectomy or $900.00 for an MRI. Post it on their website along with success and failure rates.
Posted by abell12ct at 05/21/2009 @ 11:09am
It depends on what you mean by "successful". I saw a cartoon in the WSJ the other day that went like this: "Lady, your MRI was a success, we found enough problems to justify its cost". :)
I do have a question though...With all this talk about saving money on health care with a universal, single payer system, where do the tort lawyers fit in?
Posted by pyeatte at 05/24/2009 @ 6:14pm
"where do the tort lawyers fit in?"
does anyone know why this particular talking point has infected (pun intended) the entire right wing?
tort lawyers? that's what you want to talk about?
you know, there are many western countries with better and cheaper health care systems than our own, and everyone is covered.
why aren't there aspects of other health care systems which we can imitate?
aren't you actually claiming, by default, that other countries are better than us when it comes managing costs and making their citizens......happy?
here in america, there are millions of unhappy people because of our healthcare system....
oh, but we're #1, right?
Posted by darladoon at 05/24/2009 @ 10:17pm
Socialistic Healthcare?; Think again!
"First, we already have massive government involvement in health care. Practically half of all health care delivered today comes directly from government programs -- mainly those begun in the 1960's. Medicare, Medicaid, and then later the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP).
Only 35 percent of health care is paid for through private insurance. Some 87 percent of it is paid for by third parties -- either government or employers. In 1960, 60 percent of Americans' health care expenditures were out of their own pocket. Today it is 12 percent.
So massive growth in health care spending and cost escalation correlates directly with increasing government involvement in this marketplace and decreasing consumer control over their own expenditures. Does this tell you something?
Second, to see government health care at work, we don't need to look at Canada or Great Britain or Cuba. Fifty nine million Americans already have it. It's called Medicaid.
Medicaid was passed in 1965 to cover health care for poor Americans. It is a pure entitlement. If you qualify, you are covered. Government, both federal and state, pays.
Bureaucrats define what is covered and how much physicians will be paid. And, as result, there is a huge gap between being covered and actually getting health care.
On average, 40 percent of physicians won't accept Medicaid patients. They are paid less than what it costs them to provide the care. In a survey done last year by Merritt Hawkins, a healthcare manpower firm, 65 percent of physicians said reimbursements from Medicaid were less than their costs.
Posted by BigPasture at 05/24/2009 @ 10:46pm
Merritt Hawkins did a survey this year of physicians of different specialties in fifteen different cities on acceptance of Medicaid patients. In Washington, D.C., for example, which has the highest incidence of children living in poverty in the country, only 63 percent of surveyed physicians in family practice will accept Medicaid patients.
A federal district appeals court ruled just a few weeks ago, affecting Alabama, Florida, and Georgia, that state Medicaid programs can't be forced to pay if they disagree with a doctor's decision regarding care. In this particular case, Medicaid officials disagreed with the amount of nursing care prescribed by a physician for a teenager who suffers seizures.
A study cited by Dr. Scott Gottlieb, a physician and health care expert at the American Enterprise Institute, showed Medicaid patients to be 50 percent more likely to die after heart bypass surgery than patients with private coverage or Medicare.
Move the whole nation onto a new government health care plantation?
No thanks. I'll take freedom and personal responsibility."
Lets step back and reconsider the outright foolishness of turning more lives over to "big brother"?
Posted by BigPasture at 05/24/2009 @ 10:48pm
"So massive growth in health care spending and cost escalation correlates directly with increasing government involvement in this marketplace and decreasing consumer control over their own expenditures"
none of this is true, assuming we actually had a universal system.
and, of the available data on the subject of "increasing government involvement," you are wrong. there are numerous western, industrialized countries, not unlike our own in terms of comparable variables, who have universal systems who pay far less than we do.
you can say it will cost a lot more, per GDP, but the data flies in the face of that claim.
"Bureaucrats define what is covered and how much physicians will be paid"
substitute "bureaucrats" with "insurance representative" and you have the precise current state of affairs with american healthcare, where millions of americans suffer because of it.
Posted by darladoon at 05/24/2009 @ 10:56pm
Posted by darladoon at 05/24/2009 @ 10:17pm:
Yes darladoon, I want to know how the tort lawyers are going to be kept happy. They play a big part in the sky high costs of healthcare as we know it. Is the government going to insure all doctors against lawsuits since their pay will be controlled. If so is the tax payer going to be on the hook to feed the lawyers? People want to know. For some reason this seems to be swept under the rug.
Posted by pyeatte at 05/25/2009 @ 2:33pm
Posted by pyeatte at 05/25/2009 @ 2:33pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Under the rug (or rock) is where most of the Demoncrats live out their lives!
Posted by BigPasture at 05/26/2009 @ 2:34pm