Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
Reddit
Don't like the way the Wall Street bail-out turned out? It looks as if we're in for something similar regarding healthcare.
With popular fury at the status quo rising and hunger for a real, public option attracting over 70 percent approval in polls, the White House is urging public-option advocates to hush.
According to the Washington Post, in a pre-holiday call with half a dozen top House and Senate Democrats, Obama asked health care advocates to ratchet back their pressure for a public option. He's apparently concerned about advertisements and on-line campaigns targeting foot-dragging Democrats.
We've been here before. Back in the fall and spring, when popular fury at private bankers was soaring, Washington urged liberal lobbying groups to focus more on backing the White House plan and less on attacking bankers and banks.
What happened? Washington allowed Wall Street insiders, many of whom had overseen the breaking apart of the economy, to manage the so called recovery, putting most of what was rotten back in place. The re-distributions of wealth to the top continued, while civilian unemployment headed through the roof.
As Barney Frank told bankers back in February, "People really hate you, and they're starting to hate us because we're hanging out with you."
The health care debate is suffering from the same dynamic.
Specifically, on July 4, Obama said he is hoping left-leaning organizations will rally support for "advancing legislation" that fulfills his goal of expanding coverage. But the words public option were left out.
Pro-reform activists are pushing a public plan because it's popular, it's doable -- and it's at least a step closer to the only thing most actually think will work -- which is a totally public system.
Why are they pushing so hard? Well, consider what they're up against. Pulling against anything remotely public, is the biggest lobbying blitz Washington's ever seen. The Washington Post reports that private insurers, drug companies and their representatives spent more than $126 million on lobbying in the first quarter of this year. That's over $1.4 million a day.
And they've hired more than 350 former government staff members and retired members of Congress to do all that lobbying work.
When Max Baucus, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, sat down with health-care lobbyists on June 10, two were his former chiefs of staff. Their aim: to minimize the "damage" in profits to insurers, hospitals and drug makers from any change in approach from government. Specifically, they oppose any even remotely public option, the details of which are right now up for debate.
Want to hush the activists? The real scandal, it seems to me, shouldn't be the thousands of dollars that on-line organizers are spending on advertising to the public and Congress. The real scandal should be the millions that private insurers and pharmaceutical firms are spending infiltrating the government.
If the public option lobbyists had the access Big Pharma's got, they might not need to buy all those ads. Besides -- $1.4 million a day. Imagine what real-life nurses could do with that!
The F Word is a regular commentary by Laura Flanders the host of GRITtv, which broadcasts weekdays on satellite TV (Dish Network Ch. 9415 Free Speech TV) on cable, public television and online at GRITtv.org and TheNation.com. Follow GRITtv or GritLaura on Twitter.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
I would like to see a government run health care like canada and parts of europe, but I can't see the powers that be ever letting us have one.
Posted by MplsStyme at 07/07/2009 @ 09:10am
It's becoming clearer by the day that two things are going to happen. 1) A very watered down health care reform will take place to which Obama can take credit for at the expense of those who voted for him. 2) Obama will more than likely lose the next election if he doesn't do more than cater to insurance companies, hospitals and the pharmaceutical companies.
So far, he's catered to the banking industry as well as wall street. If he caters to the health care industry, he better plan on looking for work in 2012.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/07/2009 @ 09:28am
(Now, for my "redemption" by my right-wing friends)-
Curious on this point, Ms Flanders...
what happens to the private elements when it's "a totally public system"?
Several 100 thousand people employed by "Big Insurance"....where do they go? The CEOs will Golden Parachute out....but where does the local Blue Cross or WellPath rep go?
Posted by Mask at 07/07/2009 @ 09:29am
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/07/2009 @ 09:28am
Seriously, he is disgusting me. I'm glad I never tried to get my more radical friends to vote for him instead of Nader or McKinney, and instead tried to get my conservatives friends to vote for him instead of McCain.
Posted by zmann at 07/07/2009 @ 09:35am
Perhaps the 70%-ers should gather up some uninsured TB carriers and spend some quality time near the K-street digs of the insurance and pharma lobbyists...preferably while violently coughing on them.
Posted by snowball777 at 07/07/2009 @ 10:22am
Posted by snowball777 at 07/07/2009 @ 10:22am
I like your way of thinking! LOL
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/07/2009 @ 10:25am
Posted by snowball777 at 07/07/2009 @ 10:22am
Microbial lobbyists! I too like your Vonnegutian approach.
Posted by winyahn at 07/07/2009 @ 10:51am
"If he caters to the health care industry, he better plan on looking for work in 2012."----Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/07/2009 @ 09:28am
Because his REPUBLICAN replacement WON'T cater to the health care industry?!??!?!??!??
Posted by Mask at 07/07/2009 @ 10:52am
So far, he's catered to the banking industry as well as wall street. If he caters to the health care industry, he better plan on looking for work in 2012.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/07/2009 @ 09:28am
obama is disposable.
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/07/2009 @ 11:06am
Posted by Mask at 07/07/2009 @ 10:52am
That might be what they will run on. People will buy into anything. The last 8 years proved that.
Posted by !immutable at 07/07/2009 @ 11:06am
Because his REPUBLICAN replacement WON'T cater to the health care industry?!??!?!??!??
Posted by Mask at 07/07/2009 @ 10:52am
that doesn't matter. s/he will be "different".
a new hope.
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/07/2009 @ 11:09am
looks like the cold war is finally coming to an end.
this side is losing just the same way the other side lost.
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/07/2009 @ 11:13am
The finest Congress money can buy.
And Mask, a moment of silence please. For the buggy-whip manufacturers & the loss of a generational livelihood. Truly one of our saddest chapters.
Take heart in that the private health insurers with their Congressional stooges are still "holding the whip hand."
Posted by Sorelish at 07/07/2009 @ 11:14am
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/07/2009 @ 11:06am
Hey Frosty, do you think Obama supports the current establishment because he like the status quo or because it gets him to a place where he might actually get something done that is positive?
Not just talk about it, or fight and loose, but get something done that will at least be marginally positive?
Can he game them in some way while they use him or is he totally bought and paid for?
By the way, everyone is disposable.
Posted by !immutable at 07/07/2009 @ 11:16am
Posted by Mask at 07/07/2009 @ 09:29am
The medical professionals who currently work for the insurance industry can go back to actually practicing medicine instead of gatekeeping people away from coverage. As for the rest of the folks working for Big Insurance, they can do what all of the former manufacturing workers have had to do - be re-trained and get a new job. The difference is that the insurance industry employees will probably see less of a loss in income since they are mostly non-union office slaves.
Of course, under out wonderful new Democratic President, Bill Clinton - sorry, I mean Barack Obama - the offshoring of jobs will continue apace, so we'll see even more back office jobs being exported to India, et al, to take advantage of the even lower wages and benefits in those countries.
Posted by cka2nd at 07/07/2009 @ 11:24am
By the way, everyone is disposable.
Posted by !immutable at 07/07/2009 @ 11:16am
not kobe....
obama seems like a nice dude.
i understand that steering the good ship america requires patience and good-planning.
it also requires working with the engine you've got -- in this case one that is running on BORROWED time.
perhaps mr. obama's choice of geithner, summers, gates tells us more than any speech he's ever given.
(of course it's better than a mccain catastrophe.)
iraq -- not leaving.
afghanistan -- more
economy -- transfer MORE wealth upward
health care -- hahahhahaha
gitmo et al. -- shuffle and hide
transparency -- strictly bushian
you decide.
you can only straddle the fence so long before you lose your huevos.
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/07/2009 @ 11:50am
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/07/2009 @ 11:09am
FROSTY....given NOBODY ever elected in this country will satisfy you. Why do you bother?
Or is there still some hope for us down here and you feel you might do some good?
Posted by Mask at 07/07/2009 @ 11:57am
Posted by Sorelish at 07/07/2009 @ 11:14am
Being cavalier about it is fine, Sore....but don't you find it odd that folks like Ms Flanders seem a bit skittish about raising that issue?
Seems to be "all candy and no veggies" with those trying to sell universal health care.
Posted by Mask at 07/07/2009 @ 11:59am
Because his REPUBLICAN replacement WON'T cater to the health care industry?!??!?!??!??
Posted by Mask at 07/07/2009 @ 10:52am
Mask, I know where you're heading with this. The thing is that Obama was elected by people believing that he would 1) follow the rule of law and 2) side with working folks who have been forgotten for too long.
My question is this. What has he done differently? So far, he's continued many of W's policies and he's bankrolled the very folks who brought about our economic collapse with tax payer money. Now that states are literally going broke, everyone in D.C. is looking the other way.
I know he's only been in office a short while, but so far, he's acted very much like he was a republican.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/07/2009 @ 12:03pm
FROSTY....given NOBODY ever elected in this country will satisfy you. Why do you bother?
Or is there still some hope for us down here and you feel you might do some good?
Posted by Mask at 07/07/2009 @ 11:57am
oh, give it a rest.
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/07/2009 @ 12:04pm
Posted by Mask at 07/07/2009 @ 11:59am
Well Mask, it just seems that in so many other industries like the auto biz for one, downsizing, cost cutting, elimination of facilities & exporting of same, etc. is pushed by experts, pundits & economists as a necessity or inevitability.
But when it comes to health care, none of these factors seem to come into play. The public is just expected to cough up regardless of cost, efficiency or even, sadly, morality.
Posted by Sorelish at 07/07/2009 @ 12:13pm
Posted by Mask at 07/07/2009 @ 11:59am
I am sure he does some good. He and others like him help keep me off the kool-aid.
Posted by !immutable at 07/07/2009 @ 12:13pm
The leftists moan whenever it appears they may not get total control over every aspect of the lives of Americans.
I'm beginning to think that those of us who believe in liberty may have to apologize to Stalin and Mao for calling them the worst totalitarians in history.
the American left is hungry to surpass both of these liberty haters in surpressing the liberty of people.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/07/2009 @ 12:59pm
Has anyone looked at the system the Swiss have perfected for healthcare? It seems to work well and we might be smart at least to consider it. They can choose their doctors and there is no delay in getting treatment. Something tells me they don't have the tort problem we have.
Posted by pyeatte at 07/07/2009 @ 12:59pm
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/07/2009 @ 12:03pm
Where I'm heading is...if YOUR (or Laura Flanders') agenda was as overwhelming popular as we're so often told...Obama couldn't resist it.
"sinister forces" or "corporate masters", you'd have to create some over-arching Cabal that "stands in the way of what the people truly want" to explain that away.....and sadly many do.
So how about another theory?....Obama's different (from Dubya), just not AS "different" as you or Ms Flanders would like, but maybe as "different" as most Americans like?
Posted by Mask at 07/07/2009 @ 1:03pm
the American left is hungry to surpass both of these liberty haters in surpressing the liberty of people.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/07/2009 @ 12:59pm
A funny thing you should say this considering you voted for W and thought he was just a peachy keen president.....meanwhile, W and Cheney wiped their asses with the constitution. Liberty to you means the wild west in the business world, you could give a shit about the rights of the average citizen, especially ones that don't agree with you.
You and others like you confuse democracy with capitalism (hint: they are not one and the same).
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/07/2009 @ 1:04pm
oh, give it a rest.----Posted by frosty zoom at 07/07/2009 @ 12:04pm
FZ, doesn't typically ...constant whining about "Not Good Enough" or "Nothing Has Changed, Never Will Change"...
more usually deserve that response???
Posted by Mask at 07/07/2009 @ 1:04pm
Posted by antisocialist at 07/07/2009 @ 12:59pm:
I totally agree.
Posted by pyeatte at 07/07/2009 @ 1:18pm
The leftists moan whenever it appears they may not get total control over every aspect of the lives of Americans.
•• they won't let kids take guns to school!
Posted by antisocialist at 07/07/2009 @ 12:59pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/07/2009 @ 1:19pm
FZ, doesn't typically ...constant whining about "Not Good Enough" or "Nothing Has Changed, Never Will Change"... more usually deserve that response???
Posted by Mask at 07/07/2009 @ 1:04pm
whining?
por favor. at least i say SOMETHING.
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/07/2009 @ 1:33pm
"What we are witnessing, as I have written elsewhere, is a perverse form of insurance pay off. Let's call it political insurance. Ordinarily when insurance is offered, a premium is paid and, over time, the provider of insurance sets the rate on the premium so that they make a bit of money despite periodic payouts for accidents. What we have here is different. The financial sector, and other large patronage donors, spend billions of dollars on lobbyists and campaign contributions. Politicians then run their expensive election marketing campaigns with the proceeds. And finally, the contributors buy downside loss protection from the politicians and their appointees.
Who provides that downside protection? You and me. The taxpayer. The body politic. We get used by this refracted process, and our system is mislabeled as a representative democracy. And, to add insult to injury, we are forced to endure the the horror of the awful marketing campaigns of politicians using the their payoff money to protect donors with our the tax base. The media is on the take, too, collecting advertising revenue from financial companies and from political campaigns. Far be it for them to step outside this circular flow of funds that impedes our political system from incorporating feedback from evidence of its own dysfunction."
http://www.newdeal20.org/?p=2905
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/07/2009 @ 1:33pm
Posted by Mask at 07/07/2009 @ 1:03pm
People want healthcare reform, but the majority is not versed enough to understand the options. So if the healthcare lobby is spending a million a day to influence congress and pay for comercials to scare the public away from a plan that could work. Of course the public won't be demanding a goverment option.
If we pass legislation that does not include a government option. It will be akin to a new coat of paint on a termite infested house. One of the ideals Obama campaigned on was reducing the corporate influence over our government, it is sad that he is doing nothing but caving to those influences.
I have given up on seeing a single payer system, but we need to stand firm on a public plan.
Posted by Extraneous at 07/07/2009 @ 1:34pm
People want healthcare reform, but the majority is not versed enough to understand the options.
Posted by Extraneous at 07/07/2009 @ 1:34pm
"The stupidity of the average man will permit the oligarch, whether economic or political, to hide his real purpose from effective control….. Since the increasing complexity of society makes it impossible to bring all those who are in charge of its intricate techniques and processes, and who are therefore in possession of social power, under complete control, it will always be necessary to rely partly upon the honesty and self-restraint of those who are not socially restrained."
Reinhold Niebuhr
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/07/2009 @ 1:37pm
The leftists moan whenever it appears they may not get total control over every aspect of the lives of Americans.
•• they won't let kids take guns to school!
Posted by antisocialist at 07/07/2009 @ 12:59pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/07/2009 @ 1:
Frosty, you have become a real non contributor to these blogs. you seldom have anything to add to debate; you merely criticize all of humanity. It seems that the whole world apart from you is too stupid (your words btw) to do what is right in your opinion.
You make outrageous suggestions about those of us on the conservative side, like this post: bringing in a canard like kids being able to bring guns to school.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/07/2009 @ 1:44pm
You make outrageous suggestions about those of us on the conservative side, Posted by antisocialist at 07/07/2009 @ 1:44pm
Your not so different...
"I'm beginning to think that those of us who believe in liberty may have to apologize to Stalin and Mao for calling them the worst totalitarians in history.
the American left is hungry to surpass both of these liberty haters in surpressing the liberty of people."
Posted by antisocialist at 07/07/2009 @ 12:59pm
Who is making "outrageous suggestions"?
Posted by Extraneous at 07/07/2009 @ 2:02pm
If Obama is ratcheting down the "Public" option why is this on the Whitehouse website?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Health-Care-Reform-Asked-and-Answered/
"But what we've said is that we can set up a public option in which they're collecting premiums just like any private insurer, that doctors are reimbursed at a fair rate, but because administrative costs are lower, we are able to keep private insurers honest in terms of the growth of costs of premiums and deductibles and so forth.
Now, you'll always hear folks say that the free market can do it better; government can't run anything. And what I say is, well, if that's the case, nobody is going to choose the public option. So the private insurers, who I think are very confident that they're providing a good service and a good product to their customers, should feel confident that they can compete with just one other option.
A lot of the objection to the public option idea is not practical, it's ideological. People don't like the idea of government being involved. But keep in mind that the two areas where government is involved -- are involved in health care -- Medicare and the VA -- actually, there's pretty high satisfaction among the people who participate."
Posted by !immutable at 07/07/2009 @ 2:06pm
"You make outrageous suggestions about those of us on the conservative side, like this post: bringing in a canard like kids being able to bring guns to school."-----Posted by antisocialist at 07/07/2009 @ 1:44pm
Mr Pot of California, may I introduce Mr Kettle of Canada?
Posted by Mask at 07/07/2009 @ 2:08pm
"People want healthcare reform, but the majority is not versed enough to understand the options. "----------Posted by Extraneous at 07/07/2009 @ 1:34pm
Sorry, Extra, under Reagan or Dubya and used by the Left....under Clinton or Obama and used by the Right...
I have NEVER bought into the "The People are ignorant if they don't agree with us" Argument.
Posted by Mask at 07/07/2009 @ 2:10pm
antisocialist-The Mao/Stalin nonsense is not reality based nor would having the type of health care that most on the left advocate end freedom.The fact that the veterans hospitals assign me a doctor does not mean that they are Stalinists nor does it mean that I no longer have freedom and that they control my life.Being a disabled veteran means that I must rely on the government for my care,but they do not control my life and have never made me less free than a non veteran.In fact,I have more freedom because I get a check that I do not have to work for and get health care that I do not have to pay for which makes me freer.I have experienced both private and govt care and the private care never made me feel freer than the govts care.While it is true that the far left,like the far right,tends to be totalitarian it is not true that the mainstream left or right is totalitarian.
Posted by i'm nobody at 07/07/2009 @ 2:30pm
I have NEVER bought into the "The People are ignorant if they don't agree with us" Argument.
Posted by Mask at 07/07/2009 @ 2:10pm
That is not the argument I am suggesting. I do not believe anyone is ignorant for not agreeing with me. I am stating the truth that the majority of Americans don't understand the difference between 'single payer', 'public option' and how those differ from what we have now. The public wants healthcare reform, and what (according to Flanders) we are proposing to do is give the same car a new paint job, and try to sell it to em. Dont' tell me you can't con the American people with the right advertisements or fear(Iraq war). You can absolutely con them it happens all the time. They are not ignorant for not agreeing with me, but if packaged and advertised right, they will buy their old car back with only new paint job.
Posted by Extraneous at 07/07/2009 @ 2:35pm
Frosty, you have become a real non contributor to these blogs.
•• whoopee-doo.
you seldom have anything to add to debate; you merely criticize all of humanity.
•• this "debate" is futile. or do you run goldman sachs?
It seems that the whole world apart from you is too stupid
•• not stupid, greedy.
(your words btw)
•• actually, those words came from a pastor.
to do what is right in your opinion.
•• i see people do the right thing everyday.
You make outrageous suggestions about those of us on the conservative side,
•• i am far more conservative than you.
like this post: bringing in a canard like kids being able to bring guns to school.
•• it was a joke about the madness of libertarianism. plus, don't you like ducks?
Posted by antisocialist at 07/07/2009 @ 1:44pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/07/2009 @ 2:39pm
This from MSNBC today.
In a White House statement, Obama said he was pleased with the progress and reiterated his support for creation of a government-run plan to compete with private insurance. "One of the best ways to bring down costs, provide more choices and assure quality is a public option that will force the insurance companies to ... keep them honest," he said.
Posted by !immutable at 07/07/2009 @ 3:24pm
Posted by !immutable at 07/07/2009 @ 3:24pm
good to hear. So Hidey Ho Flanders is just partaking in some leftist fear mongering?
Posted by Extraneous at 07/07/2009 @ 3:35pm
I'm beginning to think that those of us who believe in liberty may have to apologize to Stalin and Mao for calling them the worst totalitarians in history.
the American left is hungry to surpass both of these liberty haters in surpressing the liberty of people.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/07/2009 @ 12:59pm
Larry, this is beneath you.
Posted by cka2nd at 07/07/2009 @ 3:41pm
Larry, this is beneath you.
Posted by cka2nd at 07/07/2009 @ 3:41pm
No, this is exactly like something he'd say.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/07/2009 @ 3:50pm
health insurance companies are parasites. time to purge these worms from our civilization's bowels.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/07/2009 @ 3:57pm
John Stossel, ABC News' co-anchor of "20/20" and a New York Times best-selling author, likes to take a skeptical look at a wide array of issues, but hold the phone on his new healthcare special -- it was pulled to make room for yet more coverage of Michael Jackson.
Bad break for Stossel, but nice timing for President Barack Obama, who was certainly not going to get a leg up on his own healthcare reform initiative on the back of Stossel's hard-hitting show: "Canadian Health Care: The End of Innovation?"
Stossel's original promo for his special clearly pointed to a no-prisoners approach to the hot-button issue.
"President Obama said that the government is going to ‘fix what is broken about healthcare in America.' It sounds like a great idea, but often what sounds good has unintended consequences.
"When the government takes over, many critics say that you may not get the care and breakthroughs you need to save your life.
"‘The only way they can get costs down under a government-run system is to control the amount of money that is spent on healthcare,' says Sally Pipes of the Pacific Research Institute, who was born in Canada, and is wary about government taking the reins of healthcare in the United States.
"‘We are going to have denied care, lack of access to the latest technology, and long waiting lists, just like people do in Canada and Great Britain,' she warns."
For sure, Stossel had some serious food for thought on tap for viewers, but it was not to be. In his blog, Stossel gives his take: "Of course, maybe my bosses made the wrong choice. Maybe more viewers would have tuned in for my . . . report. But the beauty of the market is that if they regularly choose wrong, they will go bankrupt.
Posted by BigPasture at 07/07/2009 @ 4:16pm
Networks better at giving the public what we want will take their business.
"I'd rather have viewers vote with their remotes than have elites govern our choices, making sure we watch ‘serious' programming.
"Yes, I am sick of the coverage of Michael Jackson. I hate it that ABC didn't run my piece. Free markets sometimes encourage pandering to the masses. I still say, bless the market. The good outweighs the bad.
"Free speech means rude obscenity and hate speech. I treasure free speech too."
The dreaded theme of Stossel's special seems to be: Take a good hard look at the Canadian system -- because that's what the United States seems bound and determined to replicate.
But viewers will just have to wait to see the special, and, perhaps, that waiting will be good practice for what's to come. Some more notions from the shelved expose:
"‘People line up for care. Some of them die. That's what happens,'" Dr. David Gratzer says of Canada's healthcare system.
"Gratzer, a Canadian doctor, thought Canada's government healthcare system was great -- until he started treating patients.
"‘The more time I spent in the Canadian system -- the more I came across people waiting for radiation therapy, waiting for the knee replacement so they could finally walk up to the second floor of their house,'" he explained.
"‘You want to see your neurologist because of your stress headache? No problem! You just have to wait six months,' he continued. ‘You want an MRI? No problem! Free as the air. You've just got to wait six months.'"
Sounds to me like Obamanation that makes desolation is trying along with his publicists (the national liberal Demoncrat media) to SILENCE any oppossing thoughts!!!
Posted by BigPasture at 07/07/2009 @ 4:18pm
Posted by BigPasture at 07/07/2009 @ 4:18pm
Published on Sunday, June 7, 2009 by The Denver Post
Myth: There are long waits for care, which compromise access to care.
There are no waits for urgent or primary care in Canada. There are reasonable waits for most specialists' care, and much longer waits for elective surgery. Yes, there are those instances where a patient can wait up to a month for radiation therapy for breast cancer or prostate cancer, for example. However, the wait has nothing to do with money per se, but everything to do with the lack of radiation therapists. Despite such waits, however, it is noteworthy that Canada boasts lower incident and mortality rates than the U.S. for all cancers combined, according to the U.S. Cancer Statistics Working Group and the Canadian Cancer Society. Moreover, fewer Canadians (11.3 percent) than Americans (14.4 percent) admit unmet health care needs.
Posted by !immutable at 07/07/2009 @ 4:34pm
Myth: Canada's health care system is a cumbersome bureaucracy.
The U.S. has the most bureaucratic health care system in the world. More than 31 percent of every dollar spent on health care in the U.S. goes to paperwork, overhead, CEO salaries, profits, etc. The provincial single-payer system in Canada operates with just a 1 percent overhead. Think about it. It is not necessary to spend a huge amount of money to decide who gets care and who doesn't when everybody is covered.
Posted by !immutable at 07/07/2009 @ 4:35pm
Myth: Canada's government decides who gets health care and when they get it.
While HMOs and other private medical insurers in the U.S. do indeed make such decisions, the only people in Canada to do so are physicians. In Canada, the government has absolutely no say in who gets care or how they get it. Medical decisions are left entirely up to doctors, as they should be.
There are no requirements for pre-authorization whatsoever. If your family doctor says you need an MRI, you get one. In the U.S., if an insurance administrator says you are not getting an MRI, you don't get one no matter what your doctor thinks - unless, of course, you have the money to cover the cost.
Posted by !immutable at 07/07/2009 @ 4:39pm
Just to cite my source again... Published on Sunday, June 7, 2009 by The Denver Post by Rhonda Hackett
Myth: Canada is a socialized health care system in which the government runs hospitals and where doctors work for the government.
Princeton University health economist Uwe Reinhardt says single-payer systems are not "socialized medicine" but "social insurance" systems because doctors work in the private sector while their pay comes from a public source. Most physicians in Canada are self-employed. They are not employees of the government nor are they accountable to the government. Doctors are accountable to their patients only. More than 90 percent of physicians in Canada are paid on a fee-for-service basis. Claims are submitted to a single provincial health care plan for reimbursement, whereas in the U.S., claims are submitted to a multitude of insurance providers. Moreover, Canadian hospitals are controlled by private boards and/or regional health authorities rather than being part of or run by the government.
Posted by !immutable at 07/07/2009 @ 4:41pm
the American left is hungry to surpass both of these liberty haters in surpressing the liberty of people.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/07/2009 @ 12:59pm
Just one question for you: Who Would Jesus Deny Healthcare To?
WWJDHT?
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 07/07/2009 @ 7:00pm
Just one question for you: Who Would Jesus Deny Healthcare To?
WWJDHT?
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 07/07/2009 @ 7:00pm
Being G-d He doesn't require govts to take care of people's health.
Jesus had no interest in govt's and as He declared "My kingdom is not of this world".
Posted by antisocialist at 07/07/2009 @ 7:41pm
Myth: Canada's government decides who gets health care and when they get it.
Posted by !immutable at 07/07/2009 @ 4:39pm
no complaints here.
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/07/2009 @ 7:42pm
Posted by i'm nobody at 07/07/2009 @ 2:30pm
Right from the heart. Nice, calm, point by point rebuttal to Mr. "Those of Us Who Believe in Freedom"
"Those of Us Who Believe in Freedom" his constant thin skin over: Us= Real-Americans"
No wonder he fell for Palin right out of the box!
EVERYONE LEFT EVERYONE CENTER EVERYONE RIGHT KNOWS America=liberty
Declaration of INDEPENDENCE = freedom from tyrrany,
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of LIBERTY to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Bill of Rights = LIBERTIES
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, LIBERTY, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
All us children of immigrants know the Statue of LIBERTY
"Those of Us Who Believe in Freedom" could be insulting, but in this case it says everything about Larry and nothing relevant about anything else.
Posted by winyahn at 07/07/2009 @ 7:55pm
Nobody, Thank you for your service, and for protecting our LIBERTIES.
Posted by winyahn at 07/07/2009 @ 7:57pm
winyahn-You are welcome.I was just a combat medic in Nam,however,and did not fight or carry a weapon.Just took care of those who did.
Posted by i'm nobody at 07/07/2009 @ 8:08pm
Are you kidding? I have deep respect for your contribution, and all those in support roles. Just not a lot for the Rumsfelds/McNamaras.
Posted by winyahn at 07/07/2009 @ 8:26pm
If you thought the banker's bachachanal of taxpayer cash was bad, just wait until the healthcare insurers get done with you...
Next on the itinerary...a new watered down version of the public option that is worthless.
Then...tort reform which will deny the poor access to the corts via a limited tort option for cheaper insurance.
Employer provided healthcare won't pay for full tort option.
Posted by koroviev at 07/07/2009 @ 11:45pm
Harry Bridges had it right 30 years ago: you want single payer, universal health care? Organize and then, when you have enough folks, don't go to work. You'll have single payer, universal health care within 72 hours.
Posted by onthehelm at 07/08/2009 @ 12:02am
Cont...
The lower and middle income jobs still lucky enough to have employer provided health insurance surely won't include a full tort option, which will be just expensive enough to be out of reach.
Malpractice insurance will still be needed because there will always be some who can afford the full tort plan. The cost of this insurance will not come down since there is still risk of litigation.
How will an insurance company behave with no fear of liability?
Posted by koroviev at 07/08/2009 @ 12:07am
How will an insurance company behave with no fear of liability?
Posted by koroviev at 07/08/2009 @ 12:07am
aig comes to mind.
maybe they'll start issuing coronary default swaps....
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/08/2009 @ 01:33am
They'll take various patients and bundle them together and resell them as "health backed securities"... An adult smoker with syphillis can be leveraged 40 to 1.
Posted by koroviev at 07/08/2009 @ 02:09am
There are no requirements for pre-authorization whatsoever. If your family doctor says you need an MRI, you get one. In the U.S., if an insurance administrator says you are not getting an MRI, you don't get one no matter what your doctor thinks - unless, of course, you have the money to cover the cost.
Posted by !immutable at 07/07/2009 @ 4:39pm
Yes indeed. I just went through that crap. The doctors found a mass in my chest and wanted to do a PT scan. The insurance company said no. So, they ended up having to do a biopsy utilizing the CT scan. I can't imagine the PT scan being much more expensive than the CT scan, but either way, moronic insurance administrators were making calls on this versus the surgeon in charge of my care. Something is seriously wrong with this picture folks.
So, I ended up having to roll the dice with a procedure that's 80% effective meaning that they could have taken a biopsy of healthy tissue and missed the malignant tissue.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/08/2009 @ 06:03am
Here's an article stating where the senate is sitting on the current medical care fiasco. I say, to hell with the republicans draggin their feet on this and also to hell with Max Baucus. It's about time the senate started listening to voters.....there's a part in the article where it says if it was up to the voters, they'd tax to the rich to make up for the large offset in costs....sounds like a good idea to me.
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20090708-705695.html
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/08/2009 @ 07:40am
The leftists moan whenever it appears they may not get total control over every aspect of the lives of Americans. I'm beginning to think that those of us who believe in liberty may have to apologize to Stalin and Mao for calling them the worst totalitarians in history. the American left is hungry to surpass both of these liberty haters in surpressing the liberty of people. Posted by antisocialist at 07/07/2009 @ 12:59pm |
You make outrageous suggestions about those of us on the conservative side, like this post: bringing in a canard like kids being able to bring guns to school. Posted by antisocialist at 07/07/2009 @ 1:44pm |
How DO you maintain the cognitive dissonance required to hold such a double-standard in your head?
One good canard deserves another, but it's a shame we can't harness your hypocrisy for power generation.
Posted by snowball777 at 07/08/2009 @ 09:50am
"How DO you maintain the cognitive dissonance required to hold such a double-standard in your head?" ----Posted by snowball777 at 07/08/2009 @ 09:50am
Being a "prophet of God" helps.
Posted by Mask at 07/08/2009 @ 09:57am
Just one question for you: Who Would Jesus Deny Healthcare To? WWJDHT? Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 07/07/2009 @ 7:00pm |
No one; he'd start a free clinic.
Posted by snowball777 at 07/08/2009 @ 10:51am
Posted by BigPasture at 07/07/2009 @ 4:18pm |
Still not a problem exclusive to Canadian healthcare...people die waiting for care in the US everyday, even those covered by insurance.
A friend of my wife's had to walk around on a torn ACL for months waiting for his MRI so that his insurance would admit that he needed the surgery to repair it.
Pointless fear-mongering in the face of a system that is just as broken, but also ridiculously expensive (2X what everyone else in the world pays) is weak sauce.
Posted by snowball777 at 07/08/2009 @ 11:03am
"liberty" = willing to be dicked around by insurers
Posted by darladoon at 07/08/2009 @ 11:14am
Has anyone looked at the system the Swiss have perfected for healthcare? It seems to work well and we might be smart at least to consider it. They can choose their doctors and there is no delay in getting treatment. Something tells me they don't have the tort problem we have. Posted by pyeatte at 07/07/2009 @ 12:59pm |
Properties of the Swiss system:
- They pay 11.6% of GDP (to our 15.3%)...not a big improvement
- All citizens are required to have insurance, 99.5% do
- There is no public option, all insurance is private
- Poor folks premiums are govt subsidized so no one pays more than "10% of their income" on insurance (to each according to their need?)
- Compensation is negotiated between the insurance companies and doctors
- They pay 1/3 of expenses out of pocket (hence the short lines)
- The govt defines the basic benefits and coverage
Market-oriented, pricy, and not that big an improvement over what we have now.
I'm not sure why you have such an obvious problem with tort law (never had a botched operation, I guess), but they provide no exclusion from tort suits that I can see.
Posted by snowball777 at 07/08/2009 @ 11:22am
The leftists moan whenever it appears they may not get total control over every aspect of the lives of Americans. I'm beginning to think that those of us who believe in liberty may have to apologize to Stalin and Mao for calling them the worst totalitarians in history. the American left is hungry to surpass both of these liberty haters in surpressing the liberty of people. Posted by antisocialist at 07/07/2009 @ 12:59pm |
You make outrageous suggestions about those of us on the conservative side, like this post: bringing in a canard like kids being able to bring guns to school. Posted by antisocialist at 07/07/2009 @ 1:44pm |
How DO you maintain the cognitive dissonance required to hold such a double-standard in your head?
One good canard deserves another, but it's a shame we can't harness your hypocrisy for power generation.
Posted by snowball777 at 07/08/2009 @ 09:50am
no cognitive dissonance. Perhaps you need to reaquaint yourself with the term since you use it so loosely.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
My statement on the left absolutely holds true. I merely have to peruse these blogs daily to see my statement exemplified in the postings of the leftists here.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/08/2009 @ 11:29am
More on the Swiss...
- insurance companies are not allowed to deny coverage to any individual
- health insurance and medical procedure prices are made publicly available
- insurance companies receive risk-adjustment payments from the government in order that insurance companies are not punished if they decide to insure a sicker population
- premiums are community rated and based on 3 age groups: 0-18, 19-25, >25 years old.
- individuals are allowed to purchase supplement insurance
Posted by snowball777 at 07/08/2009 @ 11:34am
antisocialist-Your statement about the left does not hold true as US history proves and you are just reading into those left wing posts what you want to read into them.
Posted by i'm nobody at 07/08/2009 @ 11:36am
Posted by antisocialist at 07/08/2009 @ 11:29am |
To believe that 'they' use hyperbole and that you do not requires a rationalization on your part...i.e. the maintenance of what would generate dissonance in someone less disingenuous than yourself.
You can't take what you so readily dish out, hypocrite.
Posted by snowball777 at 07/08/2009 @ 11:41am
Posted by snowball777 at 07/08/2009 @ 11:41am
Snow, it is a truism that hypocrtes rarely, if ever see or admit their hypocrisy...even if laid out in front of them.
Larry will continue to say "You liberals prove your hatred by the use of false stereotypes against conservatives....but the generalities and stereotypes I use against YOU are all accurate and true and therefore show no such negative emotion on my part!"
Oh and "The Pakistani Businessman's Missionaries say I'm right!" (or whatever)
Posted by Mask at 07/08/2009 @ 11:50am
Well, he is NO FDR !!
He is turning into another sellout of a politicial without a spine, a PHONY, a turncoat, a LIAR at worst - -
Posted by Mad As Hell at 07/08/2009 @ 11:51am
To believe that 'they' use hyperbole and that you do not requires a rationalization on your part...i.e. the maintenance of what would generate dissonance in someone less disingenuous than yourself.
You can't take what you so readily dish out, hypocrite.
Posted by snowball777 at 07/08/2009 @ 11:41am
No, it's that words and terms have meaning and you are misusing the term. While I certainly am not admitting hyperbole in the statement that triggered your response, hyperbole is not one of the characteristics that identify cognitive dissonance. That is why I responded that you are misusing the term.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/08/2009 @ 11:52am
The Results Are In: A Public Health Plan Saves Big Money !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
By Bill Scher, Campaign for America's Future
Posted on July 3, 2009, Printed on July 7, 2009
http://www.alternet.org/story/141074/
When the CBO scored an early draft of the health care form bill from the Senate HELP committee as costing $1 trillion over 10 years but only covering one-third of the uninsured, obstructionists pounced and proclaimed the public plan option dead.
But the CBO had not assessed the cost of the public plan option, nor a mandate on most employers to either provide insurance or contribute to the public plan
Now they have. And as serious reform advocates long claimed, including those two key provisions drops the 10-year cost of reform by nearly $400 billion, while achieving near universal coverage.
Will the self-proclaimed deficit hawks now embrace the public plan option since it would save money? Or will they come up with fresh excuses, such as fear-mongering that the public plan would decimate the private insurance industry?
Let's add one more piece of information to the mix: the underreported report from the Urban Institute, "Is the Public Plan Option a Necessary Part of Health Reform?"
What did the Urban Institute find?
First, a public plan won't kill competition, because competition is currently non-existent:
...health insurance markets today, by and large, are simply not competitive. And as such, these markets are not providing the benefits one would expect from competition, including efficient operations and consequent control over health care costs. We believe that the concentration in the insurance and hospital industries that has taken place over the past several years has been a significant contributor to th
Posted by Mad As Hell at 07/08/2009 @ 11:56am
If the public plan option saves money, enhances competition and far from prompts the collapse of private insurance (which is the only scenario where public plan option polls badly), then the detractors have literally no leg to stand on.
Posted by Mad As Hell at 07/08/2009 @ 11:57am
Posted by antisocialist at 07/08/2009 @ 11:52am |
I'm not saying that your hyperbole indicates dissonance, but rather that your attitude about your own hyperbole (or insanity; your choice) and about hyperbole engaged in by FZ would be at odds, but for your peculiar, monocular worldview.
Thanks for the attempt at a psych lesson, but none was warranted.
Posted by snowball777 at 07/08/2009 @ 12:04pm
They'll take various patients and bundle them together and resell them as "health backed securities"... An adult smoker with syphillis can be leveraged 40 to 1.
Posted by koroviev at 07/08/2009 @ 02:09am
tranche me, baby!
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/08/2009 @ 12:31pm
and about hyperbole engaged in by FZ
Posted by snowball777 at 07/08/2009 @ 12:04pm
humour is 17,657,456 times more effective than hyperbole.
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/08/2009 @ 12:41pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/08/2009 @ 12:41pm |
I suppose the "let kids take guns to school!" comment wasn't far enough from Anti's belief system to be considered actual hyperbole.
Mea culpa.
'They' won't:
- let us ban gays from our coalmines
- preserve our right to die of the cancer of our choosing
- keep our tax dollars so we can give them to untaxed churches
Posted by snowball777 at 07/08/2009 @ 12:51pm
keep our tax dollars so we can give them to untaxed churches
Posted by snowball777 at 07/08/2009 @ 12:51pm
the reason churches are not taxed is to keep the supposed wall of separation that liberals so loudly proclaim. Without it, the govt would have the right to intrude on the activities of religious entities.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/08/2009 @ 1:40pm
the SUPPOSED wall of separation
Posted by antisocialist at 07/08/2009 @ 1:40pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/08/2009 @ 2:54pm
the SUPPOSED wall of separation
Posted by antisocialist at 07/08/2009 @ 1:40pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/08/2009 @ 2:54pm
Because the term does not exist in our constitution
Posted by antisocialist at 07/08/2009 @ 3:00pm
There will be no healthcare reform, there will be no jobs created for people who need them, and there will be only one term in the Barack Hoover Obama presidency.
Posted by Citizen54 at 07/08/2009 @ 4:18pm
So how about another theory?....Obama's different (from Dubya), just not AS "different" as you or Ms Flanders would like, but maybe as "different" as most Americans like?
Posted by Mask at 07/07/2009 @ 1:03pm
Mask, "My Obama" as you say it, talked about affordable healthcare for all as one of his campaign ideas for change. Allowing hospitals right offs for the uninsured is hardly affordable healthcare for all.
I know that Congress is holding the healthcare reform particularly the senate, but that shouldn't stop Obama from hammering the hell out of them for not doing the "peoples" work. So far, only the rich guys on wall street and the banking industry have had any attention of the White House and Congress
The dems need to grow a spine and tell the rethugs to shove it up their asses. Put forth some legislation for public healthcare and point out each and every republican and democrat who tries to obstruct passage of the bill. How did they say it, It doesn't have to be perfect, but they have to do something. Catering to the insurance industry along with big pharma is doing nothing since we've seen that for the last 8 years.
It's high time the dems used their majority and political clout and pushed this legislation through with or without rethug help.
Bush managed to strong arm Congress into a war in Iraq for no apparent reason. Obama should be able to get Congress to go for something most Americans want regardless of the rethug stance.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/08/2009 @ 8:03pm
Hey republicans.... just a reminder: you lost all power and are completely IMPOTENT!!! Noone is listening to you!! Does it fell as good for you as it does for me?!
Posted by Tiger2Lover at 07/09/2009 @ 04:38am
the reason churches are not taxed is to keep the supposed wall of separation that liberals so loudly proclaim. Without it, the govt would have the right to intrude on the activities of religious entities. Posted by antisocialist at 07/08/2009 @ 1:40pm |
I'll try to keep that in mind while I watch Hagee et al campaigning for Palin from the pulpit while raking in contributions from the fold.
I always thought it was to encourage their good works, just like the non-prophet non-profits.
I only hyperbolized it because it seems hypocritical to rail against excess taxation while dodging same in the name of the lord.
Posted by snowball777 at 07/09/2009 @ 08:24am