Joe Scarborough Is Shocked, Yet Awed by Single-Payer Logic

Something rather remarkable happened on Tuesday's Morning Joe. Rep. Anthony Weiner of New York pointed out that the health insurance industry has no clothes, and Joe Scarborough, after first trying to spin it some gossamer threads, broke down and said, By God, you're right, this emperor is a naked money-making machine!

Well, he didn't use those exact words, but Joe did seem to finally get that America has granted insurance companies the right to create bottlenecks in the financing of healthcare in order to extract profits out of the suffering of ordinary people--without providing any actual healthcare whatsoever.

"Why are we paying profits for insurance companies?" Weiner asked Scarborough. "Why are we paying overhead for insurance companies? Why," he asked, bringing it all home, "are we paying for their TV commercials?"

Weiner, who recently warned that President Obama could lose as many as 100 votes on a health bill if a public option is not included, really wants single payer--Medicare for all Americans is his goal. What a crazy, way-out, reckless notion, Joe went into their encounter believing. But Weiner asked some simple, direct questions that no politician, much less Obama or HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, has managed to pose:

What is an insurance company? They don't do a single check-up. They don't do a single exam, they don't perform an operation. Medicare has a 4 percent overhead rate. The real question is why do we have a private plan?

"It sounds like you're saying you think there is no need for us to have private insurance in healthcare," Joe asked at one point.

Weiner replied: "I've asked you three times. What is their value? What are they bringing to the deal?"

Scraping the bottom of a seemingly bottomless pit of spin, Joe is repeatedly left speechless, "stunned" and "astounded," he said, by the questions themselves. Indeed, when confronted with unfettered capitalism's massive failures, the right usually has nothing to say. The "free market" is supposed to eternally grow, not crash under its own greed. They're left ideologically crippled.

But unlike, say, Lou Dobbs, who began dobbering when confronted with similarly direct argument for single-payer, Joe was able to take a deep breath and return from a break with his eyes opened.

He even repeated Weiner's points clearly: The goverment would take over only the "paying mechanism" of healthcare, not the doctors or their medical decisions themselves. His ears perked up every time Weiner mentioned that the nonprofit Medicare spends 4 percent on overhead, while private insurers spend 30 percent.

And Joe, who has been criticizing mob rule at town halls, seemed to appreciate the way Weiner counters the fearmongering over Medicare: After decades of railing against the program's wasteful, "runaway" spending, Republicans have done a 180 and are now trying to scare seniors that the Democrats' proposed Medicare cuts will come directly from their medical care and not, as is actually proposed, from wasteful, stupid practices in the system--like, as Weiner mentions, putting people into a $700-a-night hospital bed when all they really need, and often prefer, is a visit by a homecare attendant in the two-digit-a-day range.

Maybe the real turning point came when Weiner asked, "How does Wal-mart offer $4 prescriptions?" Joe and co-host Mika Brzezinski looked as if they'd been thwacked by a hardback copy of Atlas Shrugged, and sat back to let the congressman explain it all to them:

They go to the pharmaceutical companies and say, "Listen, we have a giant buying pool here. You're going to give us a great deal."

Who's bigger than Wal-Mart? We are, the taxpayers. Do we do that? No. Because we have outsourced this to insurance companies who don't have necessarily as much incentive to keep those costs down because, frankly, they are getting a piece of the action.

Progressives tend to understand this stuff, but many conservatives won't trust such logic, especially in the abstract, which is how most Dems have been communicating. But Weiner, aware that if you can't visualize something it ain't going to stick, argued with a specific, familiar visual--that of a successful, supercapitalist, and, as Mika might say, "real American" company. And suddenly, as the mote dropped from the MJ crew's eyes, Weiner went from "scaring American citizens," in Joe's words, to instant celeb.

"That was SO great!" said Mika, as she and Joe asked Anthony to please, please come back soon, this week if possible!

"You have succeeded in doing something that no one else has done on this show in two years," said Joe, his fists rapidly knocking the table in excitement. "You made me speechless. And you made me speechless because you so clearly came here and stated your position."

While maintaining that he and Weiner have "different worldviews," Joe nevertheless raved, "This is fascinating, and one of the problems with the president's message is that it's muddled." And, damn, that's true.

Could this episode herald a Single-Payer Awakening? Or is this just the thrill of logic running up Joe's leg, soon to be forgotten as corporate media try to undermine real reform of a system that feeds the nets millions in ad revenue? When the big mainstream players shouted in unison to prematurely declare the public option dead, I couldn't help but think: In the corporate media's total takeover of ideas, they, too, have a death panel--made up of three or four conglomerate owners and chaired by Rupert Murdoch--that will determine whether an idea lives or gets its plug pulled.

On Thursday, Morning Joe replayed Weiner's best hits, but Joe was occasionally dobbering himself, complaining that our healthcare problems come down to costs, costs, costs but "now all the President is talking about is a moral imperative." (Of course, Obama put morality on the table only yesterday; until then, he focused on costs, costs, costs.)

We'll see how far this relative openness to single-payer goes. In the meantime, though, the education of Joe Scarborough is, as always, a sight to behold:

Comments (195)

1. posted by LESLIE SAVAN on 08/20/2009 @ 4:53pm

   As far as most mass-media bloviators resisting single-payer, you could truncate and generalize your headline:

   "[Bobblehead du Jour] Is Shocked, Yet Awed by Logic"

   Posted by syfriendly at 08/20/2009 @ 5:13pm

2. I am all for a single payer system. I only ask that everyone pay. Let's not tax the rich, but everyone. Pick a percent and apply it to everyone. Just like Social Security. Only no limits. No matter how much or little you make you pay your percent. You could even have a percent the employer pays. So if everyone pays 8% and the employers pay 5% you probably have enough. But people should not get something for nothing.

   Couple that with tort reform and doing something about supply and demand (more Dr's etc) and you probably can make a difference.

   Posted by Sawdust at 08/20/2009 @ 5:19pm

3. In theory, insurance can work as a risk sharing program. A pool of people pay premiums, and those premiums provide a means to pay for the risk insured against. The assumption is that the risk insured against might exceed the resources of an individual to whom the risk happened. It also assumes that the risk is rare enough that the total times it happens doesn't exceed the premiums collected. An insurance company takes on the task of collecting these premiums for a fee. Otherwise, the people could self-insure and manage the process themselves if they don't like the idea of a company profiting from the activity. But you all know this. Weiner's question can be answered simply. Weiner's hoped for conclusion is that Insurance companies provide no value, in fact, provide negative value because of things like SG&A, profit, and even taxes. Let the government do it. So why not extend this to car insurance, house insurance, fire insurance, liability insurance, life insurance, any kind of insurance. If you get rid of profit, advertising, executive compensation, then all of these things become cheaper for the people. Damn, I bet this would work for housing, energy, transportation, manufacturing, even entertainment! Gosh, what a great concept.

   Posted by sntauri at 08/20/2009 @ 5:47pm

4. I didn't see the interview and I'm not going to watch it now.

   Weiner's point is irrelevant. Single Payer is unconstitutional.

   If somehow Obama and his merry band of marxists in Congress manage to pull off this totalitarian move, I will be at least one person suing the US govt for abandoning the limits placed upon them by the constitution.

   BTW, the Medicare admin costs argument is a terrible misrepresentation in terms of comparing to all other healthcare.

   Medicare has low admin costs as a percentage of expenses because it has much higher medical costs. the medical expenses per person are much higher with Seniors vs the rest of the population.

   According to Obama, 80% of all healthcare costs come from the chronically ill and seniors in their last year of life

   <I mean, the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out here.>

   http://tinyurl.com/ntz6y6

   Posted by antisocialist at 08/20/2009 @ 6:10pm

5. Posted by antisocialist at 08/20/2009 @ 6:10pm

   "Weiner's point is irrelevant. Single Payer is unconstitutional.

   If somehow Obama and his merry band of marxists in Congress manage to pull off this totalitarian move, I will be at least one person suing the US govt for abandoning the limits placed upon them by the constitution. "

   Medicare has never been challenged by a litigant on a constitutional basis, from what I have read. Perhaps you will be the first?

   Posted by zmann at 08/20/2009 @ 6:34pm

6. Posted by antisocialist at 08/20/2009 @ 6:10pm | ignore this person | warn this person

   You blathering, ranting, raving, 10 cent idiot borne of a nickel's worth of brains, do you have any damn idea at all what a "marxist" is?

   And do you ever grow tired of exposing for all to see, this mental fantasy land you live in?

   Do you have any idea what the word "totalitarian" means? Can you comprehend just how silly you are, to try to apply the word to a public policy being worked on in a congressional body, all comprised of directly elected officials, after being introduced by another duly elected official? Can you comprehend how silly you are trying to use that word about a policy that is being debated in town hall meetings with these officials present, where you can show up and shriek your idiocies until you are blue in the face? Can you comprehend how silly you are to try to apply that word to a policy initiative that introduces competition and choices into a market that is currently rigged by a cartel to serve itself?

   Let me give you some advice, bubba: go pick up your old "repent! the end is near sign!" and go wave it on the street corner. You'll be taken as much less of a fool for that than you are shouting "totalitarian" and "marxist" about elected officials in a country that you yourself describe as "the greatest country in human history".

   You. Paranoid. Demented. Loon. If this was a totalitarian regime, you wouldn't be shouting your idiocies out in public and quasi-public venues.

   Really. Back to the "repent!" sign with you. And one other thing.

   Put down your AR-15. Medicare IS a government policy!!!

   Posted by syfriendly at 08/20/2009 @ 6:35pm

7. Weiner explained his postion very well. However, it was irritating to see the two men arguing and the woman keeping quiet like a Stepford wife. I'd like to know what percentage of the guests on Morning Papers are women, and yes, I want them to be feminists.

   Posted by ktrig at 08/20/2009 @ 6:46pm

8. Really. Back to the "repent!" sign with you. And one other thing.

   Put down your AR-15. Medicare IS a government policy!!!

   Posted by syfriendly at 08/20/2009 @ 6:35pm

   I don't own any guns nor do I have any repent signs...go find someone else to lie about.

   Posted by antisocialist at 08/20/2009 @ 6:55pm

9. universal health care is the way to go.

   sntauri makes a very fair point about other types of insurance; but of course, those types of insurance aren't as expensive and aren't bankrupting a sizable portion of the public; and if they ever did, congress and the president would be w/in their rights to propose a public option/single payer/universal system for those types of insurance (and would have to win that battle, naturally; which they are losing with health care)

   Posted by urmygyro at 08/20/2009 @ 7:29pm

10. It's unfortunate that our one-term President and his advisors are not listening to Rep. Weiner. What's even more unfortunate is that the President, Rahm "I can say the F word" Emanuel, the wispy Secretary Sibelius, and all the tools in the Senate are looking out for the insurance companies rather than for the people who (unfortunately) put Nobama in office.

    Let's hope Weiner and the other progressive Dem reps can sabotage this current bill and get something good for the people.

    Oh, and: Howard Dean in 2012!

    Posted by Citizen54 at 08/20/2009 @ 8:07pm

11. antis-Will you please quit yelling in the mirror. I think too many rational points will have you taking too much of your medication. Certainly you would not want to watch real viewpoints on the health care debate. Were you a resident of a gulag somewhere?

    Posted by whatizz at 08/20/2009 @ 8:14pm

12. No we can't!

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 08/20/2009 @ 8:17pm

13. Posted by syfriendly at 08/20/2009 @ 6:35pm

    I can't be that mean to people :-)

    Posted by zmann at 08/20/2009 @ 8:46pm

14. take THAT, america:

    "i have the luxury to say to the government, I'm not going to rush to do this. I'm appalled at how much pressure has been put on all of you to just sell it no matter what, because the Fed wants out, or the Treasury wants out. If they want out in a hurry, they shouldn't have come in in the first place."

    AIG's new CEO, Robert Benmosch

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/20/2009 @ 9:39pm

15. "The goverment would take over only the "paying mechanism" of health care, not the doctors or their medical decisions themselves."

    It sounds so innocuous. But, let's face it. Whoever controls the pursestrings, controls healthcare. That's the reality. Do we really want non-medical dingbats in Congress grandstanding on their pet issues by funding this, and not funding that? Because, that will be the reality. Also, a trillion dollars from now, you know Congressman Smith's 90 year old grandmother will get a pacemaker. Will your grandmother get hers?

    Posted by twillie at 08/20/2009 @ 9:45pm

16. Single payer is done. You can stick a fork in it. When two-thirds of Americans rate their health care as good or excellent, the Dems would be ceding midterm elections to ram it through. It seems like everyone but Weiner and the proggys know that they'll lose with single payer.

    Posted by twillie at 08/20/2009 @ 9:52pm

17. Botton line is republicans are now irrelevant. It is clear by the last crazy 8 plus years and these recent months those now few tin hatters are lunatics who oppose- they have nothing to propose, they only oppose- anything Democratic, anything we come up with to make things better. Ignor them and support loudly enough what is right for America. I know it isn't easy to ignor but YOU ARE RIGHT and their opposition is WRONG. Period. Support as hard as you can- eventually justice will prevail... God willing. What would you think if the police let a criminal go just because he yelled out lies? What would you think of the police stopping to talk to the criminal instead of just handcuffing and imprisoning it? Support as hard as you can... it will get easier. The criminal's only power is it's ability to create fear. The opposition is irrelevant. Only support those who are right- ourselves. Ignor those who are wrong- now republicans. Opposition to us at this time is irrelevant... your support is required or the weeds become uncontrolled. There is no ducking from it. Your support is required. Support US- not by opposing the irrelevant ones. Support US by standing up when and where you can. Do not debate the irrelevant ones. Write, call and visit the relevant ones and personally tell them clearly you support them. Thank you.

    Posted by aaadaines2 at 08/20/2009 @ 10:23pm

18. What is an insurance company? They don't do a single check-up. They don't do a single exam, they don't perform an operation. Medicare has a 4 percent overhead rate. The real question is why do we have a private plan?

    Mr. Weinerman if the insurance company will not pay for experimental medical procedures and cures what makes you think the socialist Demoncrat healthcare bill will?

    They do pay less co-pay for checkups and less deductables for operations! Medicare has a "blackhole" $70,000,000,000. deficit while insurance companies make a profit and you want to exchance profit not for breakeven, but an even larger than imaginable deficit!

    Why would any sane person want to embrace a philosophy that destroys 15% of GDP by the Demoncrats blackhole spending destroying greater than 50% of the GDP?

    Posted by BigPasture at 08/20/2009 @ 10:36pm

19. Too bad single-payer isn't on the table, but still 3/4 of Americans Back Choice of a Public Option

    Hasn't changed despite a couple months of lies from wingnuts and lobbyists.

    http://tinyurl.com/njvmh3

    1 WAY TO FIGHT 4 PUBLIC OPTION: Carrots for Progressive Reps

    60 members of the House made it clear they won't vote for a bill without a public option.

    In three days, FireDogLake and partners have raised $300,000 for progressive members of Congress who agree to draw a line in the sand over a public plan:

    http://tinyurl.com/lbkdp9

    You, too, can offer carrots to these progressive politicians at ACT Blue:

    http://tinyurl.com/r9mr3b

    Posted by judybrowni at 08/20/2009 @ 10:42pm

20. Speaking someone using politics to further their profit motives, how about the Obamanation and his immeddiate staff?

    The juggernaut campaign to make Obamacare a reality has financially benefited Democratic consulting firms that are closely connected to President Barack Obama and two top advisers, according to a report by the Associated Press.

    A media consulting firm with ties to White House senior strategist David Axelrod was retained to produce a multi-million dollar ad campaign touting healthcare reform.

    AKPD Message and Media, which was founded by Axelrod, and another media firm GMMB were paid $24 million by Health Economy Now and Americans for Stable Quality Care -- a consortium that includes Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America ( PhRMA) -- to produce ads touting Obamacare.

    The firms received over $300 million to run advertising for Obama's presidential campaign.

    Earlier this summer, Obama hailed an agreement with PhRMA to target $80 billion in savings as part of his reform agenda. In early August, a coalition of interest groups, including PhRMA, pledged $150 million to help develop Obamacare.

    When Axelrod left AKPD Message and Media in 2008, he was owed a $2 million severance. Some Republican critics have queried whether the firm was hired help fund this severance deal.

    Meanwhile, according to the AP report, the plot thickens as it was learned that Axelrod's son Michael and Obama's campaign manager David Plouffe work for AKPD Message and Media.

    The ads being churned out in the mega-campaign press for changes in healthcare policy.

    Posted by BigPasture at 08/20/2009 @ 10:42pm

21. MSM endlessly echoed Bushpropaganda "it's not the gubmit's money, it's your money". Good line, echoed 100,000,000,000,000 times.

    They won't let Obama use same. Read the MSM Cash for Clunkers propaganda. Ditto for his tax breaks.

    Posted by winyahn at 08/21/2009 @ 12:12am

22. Tiny little France and Germany have more competition among health insurers than the U.S. does right now. Amazingly, both of these socialist countries have less state regulation of health insurance than we do, and you can buy health insurance across regional lines -- unlike in the U.S., where a federal law allows states to ban interstate commerce in health insurance.

    U.S. health insurance companies are often imperious, unresponsive consumer hellholes because they're a partial monopoly, protected from competition by government regulation. In some states, one big insurer will control 80 percent of the market. (Guess which party these big insurance companies favor? Big companies love big government.)

    Liberals think they can improve the problem of a partial monopoly by turning it into a total monopoly. That's what single-payer health care is: "Single payer" means "single provider."

    It's the famous liberal two-step: First screw something up, then claim that it's screwed up because there's not enough government oversight (it's the free market run wild!), and then step in and really screw it up in the name of "reform."

    You could fix 90 percent of the problems with health insurance by ending the federal law allowing states to ban health insurance sales across state lines. But when John McCain called for ending the ban during the 2008 presidential campaign, he was attacked by Joe Biden -- another illustration of the ironclad Ann Coulter rule that the worst Republicans are still better than allegedly "conservative" Democrats.

    Posted by BigPasture at 08/21/2009 @ 12:16am

23. Liberals think they can improve the problem of a partial monopoly by turning it into a total monopoly. That's what single-payer health care is: "Single payer" means "single provider."

    It's the famous liberal two-step: First screw something up, then claim that it's screwed up because there's not enough government oversight (it's the free market run wild!), and then step in and really screw it up in the name of "reform."

    You could fix 90 percent of the problems with health insurance by ending the federal law allowing states to ban health insurance sales across state lines. But when John McCain called for ending the ban during the 2008 presidential campaign, he was attacked by Joe Biden -- another illustration of the ironclad Ann Coulter rule that the worst Republicans are still better than allegedly "conservative" Democrats.

    Posted by BigPasture at 08/21/2009 @ 12:16am

    Obama never said he was going to turn the public option into a monopoly.

    As far as that BS about the private sector unable to compete with a public option...what about state universities? Did UNC put Duke out of business? Did Univ. of Wisconsin bankrupt Marquette?

    Posted by koroviev at 08/21/2009 @ 02:10am

24. To all rightwingers trying to subvert The Nation via neurotic nonsensical diversions ...

    You didn't rage when the Supreme Court stopped a legal recount & appointed a President.

    You didn't rage when Cheney allowed energy company officials to dictate energy policy.

    You didn't rage when a covert CIA operative got outed.

    You didn't rage when the Patriot Act took away so many of our rights.

    You didn't rage when we illegally invaded a country that posed no threat to us.

    You didn't rage when we spent over 600 billion(and counting) on said illegal war.

    You didn't rage when over 10 billion dollars just disappeared in Iraq.

    You didn't rage when you saw the Abu Grahib photos (except like Rumsfeld to fume that they were ever allowed to be taken).

    You didn't rage when you learned we were torturing people.

    You didn't rage when the government was illegally wiretapping Americans.

    You didn't rage when we didn't nab Bin Laden.

    You didn't rage when you saw the horrible conditions at Walter Reed Army Hospital.

    You didn't rage when we let a major US city drown.

    You didn't rage when the deficit hit a trillion dollars.

    But you finally start raging when the government decides that people in America deserve the right to see a doctor when they're ill.

    Posted by sloper at 08/21/2009 @ 06:18am

25. "I didn't see the interview and I'm not going to watch it now. "----Posted by antisocialist at 08/20/2009 @ 6:10pm

    No, Heaven forbid you see something you can't explain away.

    Posted by Mask at 08/21/2009 @ 07:47am

26. "...the ironclad Ann Coulter rule that the worst Republicans are still better than allegedly "conservative" Democrats."----Posted by BigPasture at 08/21/2009 @ 12:16am

    I thought the "ironclad Ann Coulter rule" was...

    "Churn out a book of vitriolic right-wing pap every 2.5 years and morons will pay $24.95 for it everytime if you're a leggy blonde."?

    With the Michelle Malkin corollary "or if you're a cute Filipina whose husband does her research for her."

    Posted by Mask at 08/21/2009 @ 08:10am

27. i'm not afraid of this process being long and drawn out - the longer it is drawn out, the more all sorts of folks will be FORCED to think about it, to examine it...

    GOOD!

    because the more one REALLY looks at it, the less and less and less it looks like some kind of absurd battle of capitalism vs. socialism, and more and more like a fight to jerk this country into modern, sensible, competitive, modernity.

    as someone who is currently involved in trying to create jobs by starting a business, i DREAD having to deal with insurance companies - i want to do as little as possible other than what the business is all about.

    how can american business compete when saddled down with providing social services, while foreign companies outsoruce such to where it belongs - the public sector!!!!!

    but if the insurance companies are scrambling to save their parasitic asses and spending buzillions on misinformation propaganda...so what?

    more and more other corporate and business entities are asking themselves the same questions i am asking - what is so wonderful about our system? would it not be nice to have something similar to the rest of the developed world and NEVER HAVE TO MESS WITH PROVIDING SOCIAL SERVICES TO EMPLOYEES again...

    our system is WASTEFUL. health insurance is the number 1 parasite in this country and before we start looking to end institutional parasitism in other areas (at least two other institutions are quite ate up with this phenomenon as well - but one parasite at a time).

    Posted by dexter666 at 08/21/2009 @ 08:24am

28. modern modernity...yup, lol

    Posted by dexter666 at 08/21/2009 @ 08:26am

29. Congressman Weiner is simply pointing out the important fact that you cannot rely on the justice, fairness and impartiality of a free market to achieve a good result when a genuine "free" market does not exist -- as it does not in the health care and health insurance industry.

    The laws of supply and demand only work where consumers have some control over the products they will buy. Adam Smith's invisible hand only works where consumers free to pursue their own self interest as they see fit and are not forced to buy a product. The free market works in the automobile industry because people are free to buy a Dodge or Toyota if they want -- or no care at all, provided there is the "public option" of mass transit. But unless America has gone so far down the laissez faire road as to think that living or dying for want of medical attention is a personal choice, people are simply not free to forgo health care . That fact completely distorts health care as an industry that we can responsibly turn over to the free market, leaving consumers to be prey to all sorts of exploitation, from good companies as well as unscrupulous ones.

    Posted by TedFrier at 08/21/2009 @ 08:46am

30. I thought the "ironclad Ann Coulter rule" was...

    "Churn out a book of vitriolic right-wing pap every 2.5 years and morons will pay $24.95 for it everytime if you're a leggy blonde."

    With the Michelle Malkin corollary "or if you're a cute Filipina whose husband does her research for her."

    Posted by Mask at 08/21/2009 @ 08:10am | ignore this person | warn this person

    Bullseye and well-spoken!!!

    Posted by jarshadow at 08/21/2009 @ 08:47am

31. Posted by jarshadow at 08/21/2009 @ 08:47am

    Given the obvious appeal of Coulter (and Malkin) to the Right...and it's not their "political insight"...

    always curious what Ann does when she gets a bit older and some "younger version" of herself pops on the scene, and Hannity stops returning her calls, and the book sales start to slip.

    Might she have an "apostasy"?...foreswear her Hard Right politics, "become a liberal", and spend another 10-15 years churning out "Why I Was Wrong" books to an eager LEFT-wing audience desirous of seeing her repent?

    Maybe not...but be interesting.

    Posted by Mask at 08/21/2009 @ 09:28am

32. Posted by dexter666 at 08/21/2009 @ 08:24am

    "how can american business compete when saddled down with providing social services, while foreign companies outsoruce such to where it belongs - the public sector!!!!! "

    Nicely put.

    Posted by zmann at 08/21/2009 @ 09:56am

33. Posted by zmann at 08/21/2009 @ 09:56am | ignore this person | warn this person

    we had a business competitive advantage over others for a while there. by ignoring social issues, refusing to modernize, cheezing out the schmuk, we were able to out-compete many of our rivals for years.

    in the short term...

    and indeed no system is perfect - all need to bob and weave to respond to changing realities and periodic readjustments and reevaluations are a natural part of the process...

    but if one ignores the basics, impoverishes one's consumer while hoarding wealth which could be flowing to purchase products and services, one eventually finds oneself not so competitive...

    many of us who favor public social programs to assist the average person do so certainly out of common decency, but also because we believe such enables a stable and sustainably profitable economy.

    Posted by dexter666 at 08/21/2009 @ 10:19am

34. Thanks for mentioning the book, "Atlas Shrugged." Everybody should read it to see how well she prophesied our future. It was published in 1957 and reads like it was published yesterday, in terms of what it foretells.

    Posted by JackDoitCrawford at 08/21/2009 @ 10:30am

35. Posted by sloper at 08/21/2009 @ 06:18am | ignore this person | warn this person

    Stuck in the distortions of the past, unable to comprehend the present, ignoring the future, and so goes the myopic left!

    Posted by Mask at 08/21/2009 @ 08:10am | ignore this person | warn this person

    Grade F-incapable of original thought-only instinctive shark attack or incoherentcies

    Posted by BigPasture at 08/21/2009 @ 10:54am

36. sloper,

    You have provided yet another master list again of all the axes to grind that lefties have against the Bush Administration.

    These are worded in a way that conveys the leftist view on those issues.

    Your view on each and every one of those issues is wrong.

    However, if me or any other Conservative responds to any length to refute what you say, they, not you, will be accused by ficheye or mask or some other leftist of going off topic on this thread.

    Posted by sjchermak at 08/21/2009 @ 11:02am

37. Posted by JackDoitCrawford at 08/21/2009 @ 10:30am

    You don't mind if we also read some of Ms. Rand's comments on ....sex and religion, do you?

    Posted by Mask at 08/21/2009 @ 11:15am

38. Posted by BigPasture at 08/21/2009 @ 10:54am

    Ann of course can be as vicious and mean-spirited as she likes...and you have no problem with it.

    BTW, best keep an eye on my other post (Mask at 08/21/2009 @ 09:28am) RIO....some day Ann may have a

    "Arianna moment" and turn on you...if there's more money in it.

    Posted by Mask at 08/21/2009 @ 11:17am

39. Posted by sjchermak at 08/21/2009 @ 11:02am

    SJ?...have you made ANY "on-topic" comments on this thread.....yet??????

    Posted by Mask at 08/21/2009 @ 11:18am

40. As far as that BS about the private sector unable to compete with a public option...what about state universities? Did UNC put Duke out of business? Did Univ. of Wisconsin bankrupt Marquette?

    Posted by koroviev at 08/21/2009 @ 02:10am

    Do those universities print money?

    Posted by antisocialist at 08/21/2009 @ 11:37am

41. "I didn't see the interview and I'm not going to watch it now. "----Posted by antisocialist at 08/20/2009 @ 6:10pm

    No, Heaven forbid you see something you can't explain away.

    Posted by Mask at 08/21/2009 @ 07:47am

    What is the difference between what Weiner said and the arguments here by the left?

    Did Scarborough provide a response on the constitutionality of govt healthcare? NO, so why bother

    Posted by antisocialist at 08/21/2009 @ 11:39am

42. more and more other corporate and business entities are asking themselves the same questions i am asking - what is so wonderful about our system? would it not be nice to have something similar to the rest of the developed world and NEVER HAVE TO MESS WITH PROVIDING SOCIAL SERVICES TO EMPLOYEES again...

    our system is WASTEFUL. health insurance is the number 1 parasite in this country and before we start looking to end institutional parasitism in other areas (at least two other institutions are quite ate up with this phenomenon as well - but one parasite at a time).

    Posted by dexter666 at 08/21/2009 @ 08:24am

    I spent over 30 years in the business world in management and ownership. I have never heard one business person ponder any thoughts even similar to what you posted.

    I have never heard one discussion about Universal Healthcare in a business meeting. Never heard one discussion about what other countries do for healthcare.

    Posted by antisocialist at 08/21/2009 @ 11:42am

43. Congressman Weiner is a STAR! Perhaps his succinct delivery of a clear, logical message will remind the Obama Whitehouse about the similar communication skills that got the President elected.

    The fact that he was able to apply the proverbial "board between the ears to gain the attention" of the cute, but rather mulish, Joe S. is great icing on the real "cake" of getting the message across.

    And for the feministas: Mika observing with amusement? Not even a little bit "shy flower" sweetie, it's exactly what this middle-aged old cow would have done too. I am perfectly content to observe a Master at work. In this case, the master happens to be Congressman Weiner.

    I'm always amused to watch the articulate dressing down of anyone who's mouth is on overtime while their ears are on vacation.

    Posted by jmattei at 08/21/2009 @ 11:52am

44. Good post ANTISOCIALIST. Been in business that long myself. Many have been libs, but no self respecting businessman with any brains has EVER advocated "doing it like Europe". Not that I know anyway.

    (One of the funniest positions they have over there is the "Minister of Competition" slot, some gov lackey who makes sure no one gets an edge over anyone else, which isn't competition, of course, and probably hasn't worked IN a business a day in his life)

    Posted by william.harry13 at 08/21/2009 @ 11:52am

45. <Zogby Interactive Poll: Obama's Job Approval Sinks to Record Low 45%

    UTICA, New York - President Barack Obama's job approval rating has sunk to a record low of just 45%, the latest Zogby Interactive poll shows. Fifty-one percent of likely voters now say they disapprove of the President's job performance.

    "None of these numbers looks counter-intuitive to me. Gallup, NBC, and Pew all have Obama at record lows. Rasmussen also shows low approval. Things are volatile out there and news travels fast. There is a lot of anxiety over healthcare," said Zogby International President and CEO John Zogby.>

    http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.cfm?ID=1734

    Posted by antisocialist at 08/21/2009 @ 12:01pm

46. Posted by jmattei at 08/21/2009 @ 11:52am

    Weiner is no master. I've heard him speak many times. He's just your typical NY Democratic Socialist who loves stealing taxpayer money.

    And Scarborough is no true conservative. I've complained many times that he loves to be liked too much.

    He is not a strong proponent of constitutional govt. And that was his shortcoming with Weiner. He made no attempt to present a constitutional argument.

    Posted by antisocialist at 08/21/2009 @ 12:04pm

47. FICTION: Indeed, when confronted with unfettered capitalism's massive failures, the right usually has nothing to say. The "free market" is supposed to eternally grow, not crash under its own greed. They're left ideologically crippled.

    FACT: For about a hundred years, America has been a nation of accumulating medical controls. Each new regulation was passed with the same justification made for the previous one: This measure will sufficiently correct the failings of the free market and thus save the free-market system. And the result? Today's "crisis in health care" -- as the welfare statists themselves call this iatrogenic disease. The more band-aids are applied, the more wounds appear! And with nothing but band-aids in their bags, these "liberals" (often the same aging advocates of past regulation) can now prescribe only covering the patient head to toe -- i.e., the final move to the outright socialization of all medicine. What this says about the microcosm of medicine is obvious; what it means for our mixed economy is ominous.

    From here:

    Http://ABCDunlimited.com/ideas/liberalism.html

    Posted by BarryLoberfeld at 08/21/2009 @ 12:05pm

48. More on the Zogby results

    <While this latest poll shows Democrats continue to overwhelmingly approve of Obama's job performance (84%), just 6% of Republicans say the same. Most independents (59%) now disapprove of the job the President is doing.

    "He has lost support among political independents, that's the biggest change from our last survey. He is also starting to lose support he had picked up among investors and frequent Wal-Mart shoppers -- who both are on the conservative side but where Obama had been making gains," Zogby said. "Remember, Zogby polling has generally been ahead of the curve during the past three administrations.">

    As I've said since November, Obama won because he convinced enough conservative and moderate indenpendents and Republicans that he would control spending and cut taxes. Now he is revealed as just another FDR tax and spend liberal. Only he's gone farther than even FDR in bankrupting the country.

    Posted by antisocialist at 08/21/2009 @ 12:07pm

49. To all rightwingers trying to subvert The Nation via neurotic nonsensical diversions ...

    You didn't rage when the Supreme Court stopped a legal recount & appointed a President. Because the Supreme court acted correctly according to the law.

    You didn't rage when Cheney allowed energy company officials to dictate energy policy. Because he wasn't.

    You didn't rage when a covert CIA operative got outed. Because it was bullshit and you know it.

    You didn't rage when the Patriot Act took away so many of our rights. You are absolutely right. Most on the right don't feel the PA is an infringement. But I agree with you.

    You didn't rage when we illegally invaded a country that posed no threat to us. Yep, in hindsight you're right.

    You didn't rage when we spent over 600 billion(and counting) on said illegal war. Yep, but there are plenty of respected voices on the right who agree with you on this.

    You didn't rage when over 10 billion dollars just disappeared in Iraq. I disagree, I think there was plenty of raging on both sides of the room.

    You didn't rage when you saw the Abu Grahib photos (except like Rumsfeld to fume that they were ever allowed to be taken). I disagree, the actions of those soldiers and their command was overwhelmingly condemned by the right. The left used it politically against the White House until half the photos were identified as being from Frank Rich's Halloween party.

    You didn't rage when you learned we were torturing people. Wasn't torture. Again the whole story was leveraged to undermine Bush.

    You didn't rage when the government was illegally wiretapping Americans. See Patriot Act.

    Posted by freiheit1 at 08/21/2009 @ 12:12pm

50. You didn't rage when we didn't nab Bin Laden. Yep we did. In the same way we're raging against Obama for not catching him.

    You didn't rage when you saw the horrible conditions at Walter Reed Army Hospital. Yep we did. We all did Sloper.

    You didn't rage when we let a major US city drown. Bullshit! The mayor and govenor were democrats. There's your root cause of govn't failure. You leveraged the entire tragedy to undermine Bush. The waste of federal money is outrageous.

    You didn't rage when the deficit hit a trillion dollars. Oh yes we did.

    But you finally start raging when the government decides that people in America deserve the right to see a doctor when they're ill. The right to see a doctor when they're ill? You seem incapable of framing the issue. Do you even understand it Sloper?

    Posted by sloper at 08/21/2009 @ 06:18am

    Hey, I have a question Sloper. What's Cindy Sheehan up to these days? Watch how she's covered to get a whiff of left wing hypocrisy in full bloom.

    Posted by freiheit1 at 08/21/2009 @ 12:12pm

51. Hey, Larry...on polls?

    What were Ronald Reagan's Gallup numbers in January 1983?

    Posted by Mask at 08/21/2009 @ 12:16pm

52. Posted by antisocialist at 08/21/2009 @ 11:39am

    BTW, why not watch it and list your incontrovertible refutations of what Rep. Weiner said....

    and prove Leslie Savan dead wrong?

    If you can???

    Posted by Mask at 08/21/2009 @ 12:19pm

53. Posted by antisocialist at 08/20/2009 @ 6:10pm

    "I didn't see the interview and I'm not going to watch it now."

    Larry - nice to know you have such an open mind about something you don't even participate in.

    "Weiner's point is irrelevant. Single Payer is unconstitutional."

    In your opinion, health care does not fall under the Welfare clause. I am sure there are numerous Constitutional scholars and lawyers who would disagree with you strongly. Thank God you'll never be a Supreme Court Justice.

    "I will be at least one person suing the US govt for abandoning the limits placed upon them by the constitution."

    Good Luck with that. Truly.

    "Medicare has low admin costs as a percentage of expenses because it has much higher medical costs. the medical expenses per person are much higher with Seniors vs the rest of the population.

    According to Obama, 80% of all healthcare costs come from the chronically ill and seniors in their last year of life

    <I mean, the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out here.>"

    So, you're saying that older and chronically ill people are more expensive and that's why Medicare is so costly. Yet, 96% of the money going into Medicare goes towards treatment, while only 70% of the money going into insurance companies goes towards treatment.

    So if they opened Medicare for everybody, then those "medical expenses per person" would go down AND administrative costs go down (as a % of total costs) because we'd be including a whole bunch of relatively healthy people (most Americans) and the profit motive is removed from the health care equation.

    I get it!

    Wow, thanks for arguing FOR single payer health care. All in all, a great deal for the American People!

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/21/2009 @ 12:22pm

54. It sounds so innocuous. But, let's face it. Whoever controls the pursestrings, controls healthcare. That's the reality.

    Posted by twillie at 08/20/2009 @ 9:45pm

    Yes, that IS the reality (finally - TRUTH from a right winger)!

    Insurance company "dingbats" who have no medical training and are greedy little bastards, are CURRENTLY controlling healthcare....and you're OK with that?!?

    Does your 90 year old grandmother currently get her pacemaker if she needs it, or is she denied by her health insurance company because it's too expensive and she'll die soon anyway?

    THAT's the reality today. Open your eyes!

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/21/2009 @ 12:31pm

55. Stephen,

    I want you to convert me because I really want free health insurance for everyone.

    All I need to understand is if health care becomes "free" to the consumer (+40 million in addition to the currently insured), how will that result in lower overall costs of healthcare delivery? Explain to me briefly how it will not result in diminished care and ultimately rationed care?

    You continously attack anyone opposing this plan as lacking compassion. I'm against this plan because of its unconstitutionality and the raw knowledge it won't work according to administration claims.

    So please, just explain to me how making something free to a consumer won't spike demand and costs?

    Posted by freiheit1 at 08/21/2009 @ 12:31pm

56. Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/21/2009 @ 12:22pm

    Again reminds me of "Inherit the Wind" play and film.

    In it, incorrectly, the William Jennings Bryan character "Matthew Harrison Brady" is asked by the Clarence Darrow character if he had read "The Origin of Species"...and "Brady" says he has no interest in reading the book. Thus opening himself up to the question "Then how the hell do you have the right to attack it?"--"Drummond"

    In point of fact, the real Bryan was much more intellectually honest than "Brady"...or Larry/antisoc....he HAD read Darwin and still criticized it.

    You'd think Larry would make the same effort instead of taking the "Putting fingers in ears and saying 'I'm not listening! I'm not listening! He's just 'another NY Socialist'!" route of a kid.

    Posted by Mask at 08/21/2009 @ 12:34pm

57. Posted by judybrowni at 08/20/2009 @ 10:42pm

    Judy, I would argue that we need to offer the financial carrots to the Blue Dogs to counterbalance the money they are raking in from the insurance companies.

    Just like the dogs they are, offer them a treat, pet them once in a while and they'll be ours for life.

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/21/2009 @ 12:35pm

58. Posted by freiheit1 at 08/21/2009 @ 12:12pm

    Nobody had to leverage anything to undermine Bush. He did it all on his own. Most true conservatives (not neocons) would agree.

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/21/2009 @ 12:47pm

59. Nobody had to leverage anything to undermine Bush. He did it all on his own. Most true conservatives (not neocons) would agree.

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/21/2009 @ 12:47pm

    Haha, well, that didn't stop them from trying! Even Bush's riding a bicycle was criticized!

    But I agree that Bush was his own worst enemy. He let the MSM get away with slander on a daily basis.

    Posted by freiheit1 at 08/21/2009 @ 12:53pm

60. If you can??? Posted by Mask at 08/21/2009 @ 12:19pm

    After watching it, I have not changed my perception, except that Scarborough did a far better job than Ms Savan portrayed and I expected.

    Scarborough completely won part 1 of the interview

    As expected, Weiner came off as a marxist/socialist.

    a. He seeks to limit profits and then take away private enterprise

    b. He was unable to respond to the fact that Medicare is going bankrupt

    c.He presented the usual distorted data on Medicare overhead (and Scarborough wasn't prepared to refute him)

    As I've stated the only reason for the "low admin" costs for Medicare is that the medical costs for seniors are so much higher than for lower aged individuals. That distorts the true admin costs

    d. He voiced his marxist dogma against CEO salaries

    e. He misrepresented prescription drug programs. As I noted, HMO's like Kaiser only charge between $5-10 for most prescriptions. So Insurance providers can and do provide low cost prescriptions

    f. Scarborough did not look like he had been "Thwacked" on the prescription drug question. He merely let Weiner speak his point. Where Scarborough went wrong was in not refuting Weiners misrepresentation on health providers and prescription drugs

    g. Scarborough's speechlessness was not because Weiner was "so impressive". It was because of the blatant openness of Weiner in calling for the complete govt control of healthcare and the elimination of private enterprise

    Posted by antisocialist at 08/21/2009 @ 1:06pm

61. Posted by freiheit1 at 08/21/2009 @ 12:31pm

    frei,

    Just because you, Larry and the right wingers say something is unConstitutional, doesn't mean it IS unConstitutional. In my opinion, and many others', it is completely Constitutional under the "promote the general Welfare" clause. Until the Supremes rule on the matter, single payer should continue to be the goal of the US health care system.

    And NO ONE is saying it will be "free" health care for everybody. That's yet another a canard that you right wing folks use to try to muddy the debate waters because you have no ideas for fixing the system yourselves. You want the American people to continue giving their hard earned money to insurance companies who use that money to overpay their CEO's and upper echelon executives while removing sick people from their rolls, all in the name of a free market.

    I want a system whereby the general Welfare of "We the People" (including their healthcare) is taken care of, because I see that as a primary reason for government (as did the Founders or they wouldn't have written it in the FIRST sentence of the Constitution). The single payer system will not eliminate doctors, or hospitals, or the ability for a patient to see their doctor, or the ability for grandma to get the treatments she needs. The Right has such a problem with this due to pure political ideology and has NOTHING to do with providing quality health care to our seniors, our disabled and the under- and un-insured.

    DeMint, Boehner, Grassley, etc. all just want Obama to fail, fail, fail, fail. They don't care at what he fails, just that he needs to fail somewhere. Just like Bill Clinton all those years ago. The Party of "NO" indeed.

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/21/2009 @ 1:08pm

62. So if they opened Medicare for everybody, then those "medical expenses per person" would go down AND administrative costs go down (as a % of total costs) because we'd be including a whole bunch of relatively healthy people (most Americans) and the profit motive is removed from the health care equation.

    I get it!

    Wow, thanks for arguing FOR single payer health care. All in all, a great deal for the American People!

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/21/2009 @ 12:22pm

    No you have it backwards. The Administrative costs would go up as a percentage of expenses.

    And there is NO evidence to suggest that direct medical expenses will go down UNLESS the govt rations healthcare.

    Posted by antisocialist at 08/21/2009 @ 1:09pm

63. Hey, Larry...on polls?

    What were Ronald Reagan's Gallup numbers in January 1983?

    Posted by Mask at 08/21/2009 @ 12:16pm

    That's not the point. You and the other leftists keep saying that Obama is pursuing what the American people want on healthcare and I'm simply saying that you (and they) are wrong.

    Posted by antisocialist at 08/21/2009 @ 1:11pm

64. Posted by Mask at 08/21/2009 @ 12:34pm

    LALALALALALALALALALALA! I WON'T READ ABOUT IT OR LISTEN TO PEOPLE TALK ABOUT IT WHO I DISAGREE WITH!! I'LL JUST YELL OVER MY CONGRESSMAN (OR WOMAN) BECAUSE I'M RIGHT AND YOU'RE WRONG AND IT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

    IT WILL KILL GRANDMA!!

    SOCIALISM!! NAZIISM!! COMMUNISM!!! (like they're all the same thing)

    Yes, the right wing's arguments do have an air of childishness in them.

    "Inherit the Wind" is a classic. William Jennings Bryant and Clarence Darrow were giants and the play based on the Scopes "Monkey" trial captured them brilliantly.

    I wonder where the rights' intellectual giants are now? Oh yeah, they all became neo-cons (leaving true conservatives to suffer with the religious right wingnuts) and were COMPLETELY discredited when everything they wanted to have happen, happened and then failed miserably.

    Perhaps that's why so many conservatives ran screaming away from the Republicant Party and became independents?

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/21/2009 @ 1:20pm

65. Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/21/2009 @ 1:20pm

    what's your point besides the fact that you endorse a socialist nation?

    Posted by antisocialist at 08/21/2009 @ 1:52pm

66. Well, first off, Stephen, socialism, national socialism and communism are all collectivist, and therfore ARE fundamentally the same thing.

    And Antisocialist for one probably has copy and paste ergonomic injuries proving to you through examples of the Federalist Papers that single payer collectivism is contrary to the general welfare clause.

    I hope it does come down to the Supreme Court. You see, the US Constitution, as Obama himself recently and correctly observed, is a document LIMITING the powers of the Federal Government. LIMITING.

    And you'll notice I put the word "free" in quotes. Clearly single payer isn't free, Stephen. But in your zeal to be "compassionate" (in quotes because it isn't) you fail to examine the true consequences of nationalizing health insurance.

    Fortunately you will not be successful because Americans aren't ignorant enough yet to buy into this.

    But a hallmark of Fabianism is patience. And as you so aptly demonstrate, useful idiot is a growing demographic in our country.

    Posted by freiheit1 at 08/21/2009 @ 2:00pm

67. "That's not the point. You and the other leftists keep saying that Obama is pursuing what the American people want on healthcare and I'm simply saying that you (and they) are wrong."----Posted by antisocialist at 08/21/2009 @ 1:11pm

    Okay, if you want to try THAT...

    I guess in January 1983, the American people didn't want Reagan's economic policies.

    Same standard, Larry....or suddenly have a few caveats you'd like to take out for a test drive?

    Posted by Mask at 08/21/2009 @ 2:01pm

68. A very simple question.

    Will one of the posters here who is pro-reform, try and explain why HR3200 will deliver on President Obma's goals for healthcare reform.

    This shouldn't be too hard, should it?

    If you don't want to do it yourself, just reference a source that you think does a good job. Afterall, shouldn't a citizen be able to understand what the good people in Congress propose to do with 1/6 of the economy? In a little more detail than "it will cut cost, increase access, and improve outcomes".

    So easy, even a caveman can do it!

    Posted by sntauri at 08/21/2009 @ 2:02pm

69. And there is NO evidence to suggest that direct medical expenses will go down UNLESS the govt rations healthcare.

    Posted by antisocialist at 08/21/2009 @ 1:09pm

    And there is NO evidence to suggest that direct medical expenses will go down UNLESS the insurance companies ration healthcare.

    Notice how I just inserted "insurance companies" instead of "govt?" Wasn't that clever of me?

    Insurance companies currently ration healthcare - and get in between doctor and patient. This is a fact no Republican can truthfully deny. And they do it for profit. That's why you shout "socialism!" You simply cannot argue that the status quo works for patients, only that the status quo is not "socialism!" (Although none of you ever mentions the federal subsidies and tax breaks to large insurance companies or Big Pharma...but I digress.)

    Take the profit out of the equation and that problem (rationing of healthcare) disappears, and doctors can get back to doing what they do. Why do you think most doctors prefer Medicare to private insurance companies? They get paid quicker by Medicare and they don't have to worry about an insurance flunky who never went to med school telling them something they diagnosed isn't true or that the treatment they prescribe isn't right.

    As for administrative costs... how can you look at Medicare, which covers mostly seniors and the chronically ill (who cost more to medically treat, [implying a lot more paperwork]) with only 4% administrative costs, and the insurance industry, with covers more healthy people (per capita) than Medicare [implying lower paperwork per capita], with 30% administrative costs and somehow conclude that Medicare is an inefficient system in comparison to the insurance industry?

    You think I had it backwards?

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/21/2009 @ 2:13pm

70. what's your point besides the fact that you endorse a socialist nation?

    Posted by antisocialist at 08/21/2009 @ 1:52pm

    I don't support a socialist nation. However, when it comes to healthcare, I support a single payer system first, and a strong public option second.

    Again, just because YOU say I support a "socialist nation" doesn't mean it's a true statement. It just means that is your opinion on the matter, which I respect regardless of how wrong and not based in facts it is.

    So, here's my point (consider this my Mission Statement towards healthcare reform):

    Because I believe that it is morally, ethically and medically reprehensible for the wealthiest nation in the history of the planet to not provide adequate healthcare to all its citizens, and because I think it is morally, ethically and medically reprehensible for the healthcare insurance industry to profit off of sick people and/or deny them care after years of paying premiums, I support a single payer model for healthcare.

    Or let me put it this way: If, as you say, our most supreme laws were created with acknowledgment of Christian principles and ideals (which I agree with), then perhaps our government could show some Christian charity to all our citizens in their hour of need, like when they need quality healthcare. If I, as a citizen of this nation, have to pay a few extra dollars in taxes to do that, then I would consider that similar to tithing, but without the religion involved.

    Let's just call it an agnostic's tithe.

    Does that clarify my point for you?

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/21/2009 @ 2:35pm

71. "I don't support a socialist nation. However, when it comes to healthcare, I support a single payer system first, and a strong public option second."

    Statements like this fascinate me. It is like someone saying, "I don't support the war in Iraq. However I support the killing of civilians there if it means the end of terrorism."

    Stephen, again you have this compassion blindness. Stop with that. This isn't an opposition to compassion issue. I'm happy to pay more to cover those with less - and am, in fact, already doing so. THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE OF YOUR OPPOSITION!!!

    I oppose single payer because it will NOT lead to the compassionate results we expect. Social Security, Medicare, VA are all BLEEDING money. They are insanely in the red. They are not models of compassion. They are political tools. Single payer schemes will never work because they supress innovation.

    But you know, trying to get you to pragmatically look at the issue is a waste of time. Zealots like you may carry the day. Wouldn't be the first time rational voices were muted and disaster resulted.

    Posted by freiheit1 at 08/21/2009 @ 2:50pm

72. "In a little more detail than "it will cut cost..."

    Posted by sntauri at 08/21/2009 @ 2:02pm

    Cost:

    "A recent analysis concluded that the uninsured received ap-proximately $34.5 billion in uncompensated care in 2001. But there are many hidden costs as well. Adults lacking cover-age make inefficient use of the health care system, relying on costly emergency rooms, for example, when care could have been provided in lower-cost primary care settings. One study found that of 2 million emergency room visits a year, 33 percent were for health conditions that did not require immediate care or could have been treated during a physician visit."

    Improve outcomes:

    "Inadequate health care for the uninsured also generates hidden costs that fall upon the American public. Con-tagious diseases that go untreated because the carrier lacks insurance threaten the health of the entire population. Teaching hospitals and major medical centers that are strained financially from providing uncompensated care are less able to provide high-level burn or cancer care. And emergency rooms that fill with uninsured, non-emergency patients are often compelled to divert pa-tients requiring immediate care to other institutions."

    continued...

    Posted by FLaim at 08/21/2009 @ 2:51pm

73. ...continued

    Improve access:

    "The instability of the health insurance system--in which about half of the 41 million uninsured lose their cov-erage in a given year--generates administrative costs as well. When individuals move between public and private coverage, they often change their sources of medical care. As a result, medical records often need to be up-dated or transferred and insurance eligibility needs to be verified. The interruptions to care experienced by the uninsured may also contribute to higher health care costs: one study found that Medicare beneficiaries who had the same physician for 10 years or longer had fewer hospitalizations and lower medical expenses."

    Any other questions?

    Posted by FLaim at 08/21/2009 @ 2:52pm

74. Sorry, I forgot to cite:

    "THE COSTS AND CONSEQUENCES OF BEING UNINSURED"

    The Commonwealth Fund

    Posted by FLaim at 08/21/2009 @ 2:53pm

75. Stephen C you are right on the mark. Until your post, I thought no one here would mention the immorality of health care for profit. All other arguments obscure the compelling argument thay health care for all Americans should be a human right.

    The outrageous salaries the CEO's and executives of health insurance and pharmaceuticl companies make proves the point that profits take precendence over providing health care. United Health Group's CEO earned 4 million last year and has $250 million in stock opotions. Meanwhile, many Americans make the choice everyday to go to the doctor when they're sick or buy grocieries for their families. As to the Constitution, health care is not mentioned. However, "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is and seems relevant to me. I'm not very happy if I'm sick and can't afford to got to the doctor. I was very unhappy last week when my PRIVATE insurance company denied coverage of an antibiotic because it costs to much.

    Posted by YFarris at 08/21/2009 @ 2:56pm

76. Posted by freiheit1 at 08/21/2009 @ 2:00pm

    Wow, something must be working. In just a couple of days, I've been called a naif by a Vietnam Vet and a useful idiot by a rightwing nutcase.

    I am not a socialist, a Nazi (national socialist), nor a communist. I am also not a capitalist or a fascist (which you conveniently left out of your "collectivist" list). I am not ANY ist, because I believe the most wonderful part about our nation is that we, as free people, can pick and choose which "ists" are best for us. That is the nature of the American experiment. Too bad you haven't figured that out yet in your rightwing zeal.

    Unregulated capitalism is just as bad as any communist state, or national socialist state, or fascist state (and you DO know that Nazi Germany was a fascist state, right?). I believe in capitalism, along with strong regulation to stop the thieves, con men and liars who consistently use "free market capitalism" as their (your) excuse to let the poor starve, the rich glut themselves and the middle class suffer in silence.

    Regulated capitalism provides an outlet for free market individualism but within certain prescribed society-based limits. It provides a balance between the individual and the society in which the individual lives and profits.

    How am I a useful idiot, again? Because I prefer balance in our system?

    In healthcare, we have a disagreement as to whether it is covered under the Constitution's Welfare clause. Fine. Let's do single payer healthcare, you and Larry can sue and take it to the Supreme Court and see what they say about the matter, in oh, six years or so.

    In the meantime, I'll be more than happy for all the people who received the care that they would not have been given by their insurance companies. I'd consider that a win.

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/21/2009 @ 2:59pm

77. 60 members of the House made it clear they won't vote for a bill without a public option.

    In four days, FireDogLake and partners raised nearly <b>$350,000 for progressive members of Congress who agree to draw a line in the sand over a public plan</b>.

    As a hint, and an object lesson, you, too, can offer carrots to these progressive politicians at ACT Blue:

    http://www.actblue.com/page/theytookthepledge

    Posted by judybrowni at 08/21/2009 @ 3:05pm

78. Any other questions?

    Posted by FLaim at 08/21/2009 @ 2:52pm

    Yes.

    1) And HR3200 solves these problems by doing what?

    2) You believe that is a comprehensive answer?

    Posted by sntauri at 08/21/2009 @ 3:10pm

79. Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/21/2009 @ 2:59pm

    The root of our disagreement is simply this. You seem to believe the 111th Congress can deliver the RESULTS you non-chalantly assume will materialize with this legislation.

    I don't. And I can't understand how anyone rational and objective can.

    Posted by freiheit1 at 08/21/2009 @ 3:17pm

80. Posted by freiheit1 at 08/21/2009 @ 3:17pm

    Hey, FREI...why don't you explain again why you considered voting for Obama because you thought he might be more fiscally conservative than McCain!

    Posted by Mask at 08/21/2009 @ 3:19pm

81. Posted by JackDoitCrawford at 08/21/2009 @ 10:30am

    my favorite quote regarding Ayn Rand's "Magnum opus":

    "There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves Orcs...."

    Posted by sincere1906 at 08/21/2009 @ 3:21pm

82. "Yes.

    1) And HR3200 solves these problems by doing what?

    2) You believe that is a comprehensive answer?"

    Posted by sntauri at 08/21/2009 @ 3:10pm

    I think it's comprehensive enough for any normal person that has read the bill. Have you read it?

    1) If you qualify for traditional Medicaid, then under HR 3200, you'll be placed into Medicaid. That means the uninsured will have primary care physicians, lessening the burden on emergency rooms.

    2) I have to explain to you why we don't want people walking around with contagious diseases? Our government is supposed to protect the people. Or why "core-competency" makes just as much sense for teaching hospitals and major medical centers as it does for corporate businesses?

    3) HR3200 calls for medical records to be stored electronically. Your doctor can bring up your history country-wide. And doctors can look up the efficacy of new drugs and procedures and discuss them with you to determine what may work best.

    Posted by FLaim at 08/21/2009 @ 3:29pm

83. Posted by Mask at 08/21/2009 @ 3:19pm

    TARP.

    Posted by freiheit1 at 08/21/2009 @ 3:29pm

84. <i>Posted by antisocialist at 08/21/2009 @ 11:39am </i>

    Maybe he didn't deal with constitutional arguments...because none of them are good. We've gone over this multiple times, and unless my memory is failing me, you've made no convincing response to my arguments as to why the text and structure of the Constitution clearly permit a single-payer system (leaving the merits to an entirely different discussion). Let me give you a couple responses, including one I don't think I've made yet:

    1) If your position is correct, it's equally unconstitutional for the government to provide not only Medicare, but free insurance for troops. Since your argument derives from the state establishing a system in which insurance is provided, it implicates all of those things, not just single-payer. Either all of them are unconstitutional or none of them is.

    2) It fits the "general welfare" standard. I agree with you that it's not entirely open-ended, and maybe that it's not an entirely political question. However, I've seen no argument as to why it wouldn't fit under this standard. You need to not only make broad arguments about how the Constitution is a limiting document (which, insofar as it gives a Congress powers that it didn't have before, like taxation, is not ENTIRELY true anyway), but show me how they specifically implicate health-care. I've yet to see any such argument.

    And, even if it doesn't, it still fits under the Interstate Commerce Clause, at least those parts that actually involve regulation. You've never responded to the basic fact that so long as health-care services transcend state boundaries, they are by definition subject to the Commerce Clause. This is not even a debateable proposition; it's just true.

    Posted by Thrawn at 08/21/2009 @ 3:31pm

85. TARP.----Posted by freiheit1 at 08/21/2009 @ 3:29pm

    Technical Sargeant TARP....my favorite John Irving character.

    Posted by Mask at 08/21/2009 @ 3:37pm

86. Posted by FLaim at 08/21/2009 @ 3:29pm

    While I have read the bill several times and I have heaps of problems with it, I want to acknowledge that you are the first person in two weeks, over dozens of blogs, who has ever attempted to deal with the specifics of the legislation without resorting to personal attacks, ideological positioning, or talking points. For this I salute you!

    Posted by sntauri at 08/21/2009 @ 3:40pm

87. On the question of administrative costs, I believe what Larry/anti is saying is that because the cost of health care for the elderly is so much higher than for the young, the administrative costs, which may be approximately the same for both populations, would therefore account for a smaller percentage of the overall costs for elder care.

    An example:

    Medical care for Gramps Overall cost: $1 million Admin costs: $40,000 Admin as percent of Medical: 4%

    Medical care for a young whippersnapper Overall cost: $133,000 Admin costs: $40,000 Admin as percent of Medical: 30%

    Larry, if I have misinterpreted your position, please feel free to correct me.

    As for whether I agree with Larry/anti on this, that's the subject of my next post.

    Posted by cka2nd at 08/21/2009 @ 3:41pm

88. "For this I salute you!"

    Posted by sntauri at 08/21/2009 @ 3:40pm

    Thank you.

    The bill is far from perfect,but I see our current health care system as a major problem for this country, both from the economic as well as the moral/societal perspective.

    And just for the record, employees at my company have no out-of-pocket for medical, dental, visison, or life. But if costs were lowered, they would have more in their paychecks.

    Posted by FLaim at 08/21/2009 @ 3:57pm

89. Posted by cka2nd at 08/21/2009 @ 3:41pm

    I don't happen to agree with Larry/anti's position, assuming I correctly stated it above, at least not without compelling evidence that the only reason the administrative costs of Medicare are barely a tenth of those of the private health insurers is that the medical costs for the latter are also only just over 1/10th of those paid by Medicare.

    On the contrary, my guess is that the administrative costs NOT related to health care itself are a significant cause of the disparity between the private health insurance companies and Medicare.

    Health care providers have to deal with dozens of insurance companies, meaning far more staff dedicated to billing than those who mainly have to deal with Medicare or, in other countries, either a single payer or primary payer system run by the government.

    In addition, the private health insurers all have staff whose job it is to interfere in the doctor/patient relationship by denying funding for care which, according to an interview with Obama's former private physician, is rare to non-existent for doctors dealing with Medicare. Most or all of them have a hell of a lot more executives with six, seven or eight-figure compensation packages than Medicare has administrators with a six-figure salary (Anyone know if anyone working for Medicare makes more than a million bucks a year?). And they've got advertising and marketing budgets that dwarf Medicare's. You're all welcome to jump in with something I've missed.

    So, I don't buy the argument that admin costs for a single payer system will be comparable to those of the current one. And from all that I have ever heard about the systems in othe countries, the empirical evidence doesn't support anti's position, either.

    Posted by cka2nd at 08/21/2009 @ 4:10pm

90. If President Obama were a progressive, reaching conservative voters would be relatively easy. The simplicity and sensibility of Medicare for All, both morally and fiscally, are overwhelming.

    Instead we've been treated to the "bipartisanship" smokescreen and the range of confusions and contradictions it requires, including the false barrier of the filibuster (which can be eliminated with 51 votes). No wonder Mr. Obama's poll numbers are dropping.

    Remember all that "transformational" hoopla? Well, if we're very lucky (and, more important, the grassroots keep sprouting), the President will undergo the transformation needed to deliver a bit of the change we can believe in.

    Who knows what heights a healthcare win for the American people might lead to?

    Posted by fragen at 08/21/2009 @ 4:22pm

91. As I said to Darin on another thread, so many of the right-wing arguments against single payer or the public option are abstract and contradicted by the experiences of other countries with either single payer or a far more regulated private system, and by our own experience with Medicare. They also accept practices by the private sector (using the economy of scale to save money) that they would deny to the public sector.

    On the Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security "fiscal crisis:" There is a perfectly reasonable solution to the last of these: eliminate the top limit on the income subject to FICA taxes. On top of that, I'm sure there are other reasonable solutions emanating from the left for fixing the damage the right has done, with the assistance of centrist Democrats, to the funding of all three programs since at least the early 80's (Alan Greenspan and Pete Peterson, feh!).

    One more reminder why I don't vote for Democrats: Of the many reasons Obama is screwing all of this up, don't forget that some of his proposals are bad for the working and middle classes, in particular the idea of shifting some costs (or cutting coverage) onto the backs of at least some folks on Medicare.

    Posted by cka2nd at 08/21/2009 @ 4:25pm

92. Posted by sincere1906 at 08/21/2009 @ 3:21pm

    Hah! Priceless, absolutely flippin' priceless!

    Posted by cka2nd at 08/21/2009 @ 4:36pm

93. I would like to see health coverage for all: it's the moral thing to do. Let's construct a system in which doctors could actually abide by the Hippocratic oath. I think preventive care for all and the consequent reduction of the necessity for charity care and High ER costs for the "uncovered," reduction in administrative costs, and a unified system would provide enough savings to fund a solid reform plan. (And I know people who make above $250K who'd be happy to kick in, given the present situation.) Given what I can figure out about the mechanics of the politics behind the opposition to this, the only real cause of opposition is selfishness and greed.

    Greed of the insurance companies is easy enough to fathom; what I don't really understand is why there would be any real grassroots opposition.

    So I try to put myself into their shoes.

    Maybe they're afraid their coverage would be compromised; the President has assured them this would not be so. Contemplating the real mechanics of the situation - and having seen how this can work in other countries, I believe him. Can these people be so incredibly susceptible to demagogic rants targeting their basest fears? I guess so. Still, I want to believe that people are capable of thinking beyond their own narrow self-centered fears.

    But - how can this be easy, given the state of media discourse? - for example - I read Dick Morris's take on killing Granny this morning in a local paper; I fretted thinking this was a real concern of the elderly until I did a little digging, and found out that Mr Morris was getting paid 24,OOO to circulate his rant, funded by the Republican Trust.

    I think health reform would benefit the great majority. Those of you against haven't really been listening.

    Posted by madeleinestanton at 08/21/2009 @ 5:34pm

94. Posted by freiheit1 at 08/21/2009 @ 3:17pm

    Nope. Wrong again in your assumptions about me, useful idiot zealot that I am.

    I do NOT believe that the 111th Congress can do it. In fact, they are showing less and less spine everyday.

    However, I HOPE they can do it, in spite of the yelling ("Socialism!"), screaming ("They're gonna kill grandma!") and outright LYING ("Death panels!") that is being put out by the Republican Party Circus and their insurance company sympathizers, like you and Larry. I hope they pass it in spite of the fact that one of the Republican co-authors of the bill in the Senate (Grassley), came out and said that he wouldn't vote for his own bill unless he could get other Republicans to vote for it...what a show of support for your own work there, Mr. Senator!

    Doing nothing about healthcare, as the Republicans want, will bring ruin to our country. Then watch as the healthcare insurance companies fold up their tents and go elsewhere.

    After all, that's how circuses operate; they take your money, give you little or nothing in return, then leave town...or in this case, deny you coverage.

    Just because we call it an "industry" doesn't make it any less a true ripoff than it is.

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/21/2009 @ 5:46pm

95. Can Single-Payer Healthcare fall under the definition "Promote the General Welfare" in the Preamble to the Constitution?

    Posted by Afroxander at 08/21/2009 @ 6:06pm

96. However, "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is and seems relevant to me. I'm not very happy if I'm sick and can't afford to got to the doctor. I was very unhappy last week when my PRIVATE insurance company denied coverage of an antibiotic because it costs to much.

    Posted by YFarris at 08/21/2009 @ 2:56pm

    Wow, this is so typical of the emotional argument from many (I said many, not all) on this issue.

    <We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.>

    1. Our rights do not come from govt.

    2. Govt is established with the consent of the people to ensure that they do not prohibit the rights that the creator gives us.

    3. That cannot mean that it is the role of govt to provide a right it doesn't have the power to give.

    4. Our govt was formed to define the LIMITS OF POWER given to it by the constitution.

    5. All the rest of the power resides with the states respectively and to the people (10th amendment)

    If the govt is responsible for your happiness, do you have the right to make them guarantee your happiness if a relationship ends?

    How about if your children disappoint you?

    How about if you don't get the job or the raise you wanted?

    Posted by antisocialist at 08/21/2009 @ 6:37pm

97. Posted by Afroxander at 08/21/2009 @ 6:06pm

    In the long run, what are we spending all that money on "defense" for if it is not to protect a healthy nation?

    I am not a Constitutional scholar or lawyer. Neither is anyone else on this website (as far as I know). We all have our opinions and my opinion is yes, guaranteed affordable healthcare for everyone, in this modern age, can fall under the "general Welfare" of the nation.

    Others disagree. Until we try it, somebody sues the government in Federal Court and the Supreme Court decides, we'll never know.

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/21/2009 @ 6:38pm

98. Can Single-Payer Healthcare fall under the definition "Promote the General Welfare" in the Preamble to the Constitution?

    Posted by Afroxander at 08/21/2009 @ 6:06pm

    Absolutely not according to the men who wrote it.

    <"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."

    James Madison elaborated upon this limitation in a letter to James Robertson:

    With respect to the two words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.

    And Jefferson, called the father of democracy

    "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Albert Gallatin, 1817

    In 1819, Chief Justice Marshall (McCulloch v. Maryland) ruled: "This government is acknowledged by all, to be one of enumerated powers.

    Posted by antisocialist at 08/21/2009 @ 6:40pm

99. I'm seventy two years old and I have simply realized that health care for profit is in fact not logical. it truly is a quintessential oxymoron. There are things that don't fit neatly into the profit motive, (i.e. military, fire dept, police). Blackwater is an ideal present example of a mercenary military. I am truly surprised at the stench of money that has purchased our government. The stink permeates both parties to the extent that we are not going to get any meaningful health care reform this year and the drug and insurance companies are going to guarantee even more profit. I guess we can no longer accuse other countries of being politically corrupt, we seem to have joined the club.

    Posted by julien38 at 08/21/2009 @ 7:35pm

100. "Regulated capitalism provides an outlet for free market individualism but within certain prescribed society-based limits. It provides a balance between the individual and the society in which the individual lives and profits. How am I a useful idiot, again? Because I prefer balance in our system?"

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/21/2009 @ 2:59pm

     No, because you think Congress is capable of effectively "regulating" capitalism. Don't you think the Dems would have figured it out by now? And prevented the latest financial meltdown? Who can you hold up as an example of a country that has effectively regulated it without just plain strangling it? France?

     Posted by twillie at 08/21/2009 @ 10:06pm

101. "What were Ronald Reagan's Gallup numbers in January 1983?" Posted by Mask at 08/21/2009 @ 12:16pm

     I think it's funny the way you assign people to collect facts for you. mask, why don't YOU tell us what Reagan's Gallup numbers were in 1983?

     Posted by twillie at 08/21/2009 @ 10:08pm

102. Why do you have a right to healthcare? If it comes as a result of the "social contract", which in theory describes the roles and responsibilities of citizens in a society to each other and to the society, then who is required to deliver that healthcare. Does your right require the government to provide a particular level of care, a specific amount of research, a number of new pharmaceutical entities per year? If there are insufficient doctors, does the government have the power to compel people to become doctors in order to satisfy your right? If you have a right to healthcare, then you should be able to describe that right. And not as simply as "as much of whatever it is I need".

     Posted by sntauri at 08/21/2009 @ 10:16pm

103. "Why do you think most doctors prefer Medicare to private insurance companies? They get paid quicker by Medicare and they don't have to worry about an insurance flunky who never went to med school telling them something they diagnosed isn't true or that the treatment they prescribe isn't right."

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/21/2009 @ 2:13pm

     You are wrong. They DON'T prefer Medicare, they DON't get paid quicker, and instead of an insurance flunky, they have a civil servant who never went to medical school denying payment.

     I don't know how invested you are in single payer, my friend, but it is as dead as Generallisimo Francisco Franco.

     Let's try this: For those of us saps who would rather pay the greedy insurance companies for health "insurance", let us do it. For the 40 million without insurance, let's start an insurance co-op, which can provide them with the necessary coverage. It can be bid out to insurance companies. OK?

     Posted by twillie at 08/21/2009 @ 10:23pm

104. More liberal lies in the light of day;

     Insurance companies are denying legitimate claims because they are "villains."

     Obama denounced the insurance companies in last Sunday's New York Times, saying: "A man lost his health coverage in the middle of chemotherapy because the insurance company discovered that he had gallstones, which he hadn't known about when he applied for his policy. Because his treatment was delayed, he died."

     Well, yeah. That and the cancer.

     Assuming this is true -- which would distinguish it from every other story told by Democrats pushing national health care -- in a free market, such an insurance company couldn't stay in business. Other insurance companies would scream from the rooftops about their competitor's shoddy business practices, and customers would leave in droves.

     If only customers had a choice! But we don't because of government regulation of health insurance.

     Speaking of which, maybe if Mr. Gallstone's insurance company weren't required by law to cover early childhood development programs and sex-change operations, it wouldn't be forced to cut corners in the few areas not regulated by the government, such as cancer treatments for patients with gallstones.

     National health care will give Americans "basic consumer protections that will finally hold insurance companies accountable" -- as Barack Obama claimed in his op/ed in the Times.

     You want to protect consumers? Do it the same way we protect consumers of dry cleaning, hamburgers and electricians: Give them the power to tell their insurance companies, "I'm taking my business elsewhere."

     Posted by BigPasture at 08/21/2009 @ 10:34pm

105. The Obamanation and the Demoncrats along with their good friends (and his staff) who stand to profit greatly from tell us;

     Government intervention is the only way to provide coverage for pre-existing conditions.

     The only reason most "pre-existing" conditions aren't already covered is because of government regulations that shrink the insurance market to a microscopic size, which leads to fewer options in health insurance and a lot more uninsured people than would exist in a free market.

     The free market has produced a dizzying array of insurance products in areas other than health. (Ironically, array-associated dizziness is not covered by most health plans.) Even insurance companies have "reinsurance" policies to cover catastrophic events occurring on the properties they insure, such as nuclear accidents, earthquakes and Michael Moore dropping in for a visit and breaking the couch.

     If we had a free market in health insurance, it would be inexpensive and easy to buy insurance for "pre-existing" conditions before they exist, for example, insurance on unborn -- unconceived -- children and health insurance even when you don't have a job. The vast majority of "pre-existing" conditions that currently exist in a cramped, limited, heavily regulated insurance market would be "covered" conditions under a free market in health insurance.

     Posted by BigPasture at 08/21/2009 @ 10:36pm

106. It's a well-known `secret' that established doctors and practice groups, generally turn away new MediCare patients but do keep those that grew `old' with them!

     My in-laws moved to Houston a few years ago and not a single doctor we use ourselves, will take them! Fortunately for them, Houston being a major med center with multiple big-name med schools, there are always young doctors coming out of residencies who haven't build up an expensive doctors' lifestyle or even have kids.

     Posted by Happy at 08/21/2009 @ 10:49pm

107. I spent over 30 years in the business world in management and ownership. I have never heard one business person ponder any thoughts even similar to what you posted.

     I have never heard one discussion about Universal Healthcare in a business meeting. Never heard one discussion about what other countries do for healthcare.

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/21/2009 @ 11:42am

     That is probably because, as you prove here over and over, you don't listen very well.

     Posted by erazma at 08/22/2009 @ 07:26am

108. Posted by BigPasture at 08/21/2009 @ 10:36pm |

     The fact that you're willing to pretend that exclusion of people on the basis of pre-existing conditions wouldn't occur in a deregulated insurance market does little but prove that you're an industry shill, Rio.

     It's about watching their bottom line, plain and simple.

     They'd do it even if they could sell insurance to imaginary friends and angels too.

     Posted by snowball777 at 08/22/2009 @ 07:41am

109. Aetna spends more per enrollee on commercial advertising ($1B or $66/enrollee) than Medicare spends on doing admin for each of their 44.1M beneficiaries ($2.9B or $65/enrollee).

     Posted by snowball777 at 08/22/2009 @ 07:43am

110. An insurance company is nothing but a middle man. Farmers don't bring their goods directly to Safeway. Ranchers don't bring their cattle to McDonalds. Imagine an employer having to deal with each employee's doctor visitation receipts, lab procedures, operations, etc. It would be a bureuacratic nightmare.

     Hence, the creation of insurance companies to manage such a system for employers. The profit margin of insurance companies is 3%. Does anyone believe that the government can do it for less than 3%? It can't even reimburse car dealers. It couldn't even manage a nationwide flu vaccine program in 2003 (not enough, wrong vaccine . . .)

     The only way for government to do it cheaper is to pay less for health services, as it does with Medicare,; for which insurance companies have to raise their fees to make up the difference to doctors and hospitals.

     Government control invariably will result in fewer quality doctors and nurses and rationing. Rural areas will be hard hit. Ever see a VA facility in a rural area?

     Take away insurance company tax protections and allow them to compete across state lines. Or better yet - Tort Reform. Let the federal government pay for all medical malpractice suits. I'd love to see all the dem lawyers who have been sucking off the federal teat actually have to chase the fed ambulance.

     Posted by buckksnort at 08/22/2009 @ 08:31am

111. How dare a politician speak of morality!!!

     -------

     I have never heard one discussion about Universal Healthcare in a business meeting. Never heard one discussion about what other countries do for healthcare.

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/21/2009 @ 11:42am

     and once again, If Larry has never seen it, it must never have happened.

     WAPo

     By Steven Pearlstein Wednesday, January 17, 2007

     "There, at the National Press Club, stood the president of the Business Roundtable, representing the country's largest corporations; the president of the Service Employees International Union, the country's most vibrant union and one of its fastest-growing; and the president of AARP, the formidable seniors lobby. They put aside their usual differences to deliver a clear, simple message to President Bush and congressional leaders of both parties:

     We stand ready to give you the political cover you need for a centrist, bipartisan fix for a broken health-care system.

     ...What does that consensus look like?

     It starts with universal coverage, accomplished either through a mandate on everyone to purchase basic health insurance or a mandate on all employers to offer it. "

     -----------

     Who can you hold up as an example of a country that has effectively regulated it without just plain strangling it?

     Posted by twillie at 08/21/2009 @ 10:06pm

     Duh, the USA? We have lots of regulation, yet remain the capitalist Utopia. Imagine that!! Lots of regulations in ALL industries, most are effective, some are not, many are ignored....yet we have multi billionaires, millionaires, millions of small and big businesses. All able to function within markets that are regulated by law.

     What I cannot figure out is why the Nation cons are so against law. Any ideas?

     Posted by crabwalk at 08/22/2009 @ 08:36am

112. I have never heard one discussion about Universal Healthcare in a business meeting. Never heard one discussion about what other countries do for healthcare.

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/21/2009 @ 11:42am

     Marxism in the boardrooms!!!! Run away....! Be afraid! marxism...socialism....ARRRGGHHHH...Leftism....

     Washington Business Journal:

     Friday, May 23, 2003

     "The present course we are following is unsustainable," says Bill Daley, president of SBC Communications and one of five executives who signed a letter to fellow business leaders asking for their support for comprehensive reform.

     "Business alone cannot handle this emergency," the letter states.

     Although the coalition is still working on a specific reform proposal, it has agreed on the following principles:

     * Health insurance for all;

     * Improved quality of care;

     * Controlling total system costs and stopping cost shifting;

     * Creating a more viable and equitable mechanism of financing (i.e. a level playing field); and

     * Simplified administration.

     Simmons says an "effective cost-containment strategy ... could more than offset the cost of securing universal coverage."

     Posted by crabwalk at 08/22/2009 @ 08:42am

113. I have never heard one discussion about Universal Healthcare in a business meeting. Never heard one discussion about what other countries do for healthcare.

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/21/2009 @ 11:42am

     May 07, 2007

     SACRAMENTO -- Abandoning the business lobby's traditional resistance to healthcare reform, a new coalition of 36 major companies plans to launch a political campaign today calling for medical insurance to be expanded to everyone along lines Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is proposing for California

     The coalition includes some of the nation's largest companies: PepsiCo, General Mills, Pacific Gas and Electric Co., Wm. Wrigley Jr. Co., The Kroger Co., a number of Safeway vendors and grocery item manufacturers such as Bumble Bee Seafoods LLC.

     Such large firms already provide medical coverage to their employees and have become increasingly frustrated as premiums have increased over the years. That has made them more willing to look to the government for solutions.

     Schwarzenegger's proposal to insure everyone in California, unveiled in January, was influenced by Burd's views.

     Burd's group has embraced two of Schwarzenegger's central concepts: requiring everyone to be insured and providing financial assistance to the poor to help them purchase coverage.

     Posted by crabwalk at 08/22/2009 @ 08:47am

114. Or let me put it this way: If, as you say, our most supreme laws were created with acknowledgment of Christian principles and ideals (which I agree with), then perhaps our government could show some Christian charity to all our citizens in their hour of need, like when they need quality healthcare. If I, as a citizen of this nation, have to pay a few extra dollars in taxes to do that, then I would consider that similar to tithing, but without the religion involved.

     Let's just call it an agnostic's tithe. posted by STEPHEN CARVER

     Wonderful!!!!

     Posted by crabwalk at 08/22/2009 @ 08:53am

115. Jesus told the lepers "Sorry, payment must be made at time of service. If you cannot afford my treatment, too bad. Clearly, if you cannot afford my services you are lazy and deserve to live in agony and to die young."

     Amen.

     Unregulated capitalism is The Way and The Word.

     Posted by crabwalk at 08/22/2009 @ 09:01am

116. I have never heard one discussion about Universal Healthcare in a business meeting. Never heard one discussion about what other countries do for healthcare.

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/21/2009 @ 11:42am

     Oh, wait, I have NEVER, in my 40 plus years, heard Jesus say anything. Nor do I find any of his own writings. Not a single word that Jesus ever wrote has ever been found. In the 20 years I spent Sundays in Church, I never heard Jesus say anything about the wonders of unregulated capitalism.

     Yet, Larry the Lying Preacher lives his life according to this...Jesus. Larry has never heard Jesus, while in a business meeting or elsewhere. So, how can he know what Jesus said or wanted?

     Posted by crabwalk at 08/22/2009 @ 09:09am

117. Yet, Larry the Lying Preacher lives his life according to this...Jesus. Larry has never heard Jesus, while in a business meeting or elsewhere. So, how can he know what Jesus said or wanted?

     Posted by crabwalk at 08/22/2009 @ 09:09am | ignore this person | warn this person

     He uses Jesus to attempt to justify his own lack of compassion, lack of conscience, as do many so-called "Christians." You neo-cons are going to be awfully disappointed when you reach the gates of heaven (yes, Jesus died so even you could have eternal redemption) and find a great number of people there that shouldn't be there, according to your standards of "Christianity." Hypocrisy will place a lot of people at the back of the line.

     Posted by jarshadow at 08/22/2009 @ 09:42am

118. Did you guys hear the nonsense from the Birthers/anti-health insurance reform Palin supporting side regarding Stephen Hawking?

     apparently the Truth Tellers on the free market/xtian side of the debate claimed that Hawking WOULD BE DEAD if he had European style SOCIALIST/MARXIST single payer Death Panels.

     From an editorial in Investors Business Daily :

     "People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless."

     Whoops!! It turns out that the same kind of Truthiness that applies to Saddams "reconstituted nuclear programs", Palins "Death Panels" and the macro threat of Bill Ayers applies to this claim. The Real Truth is that Hawking has been a British citizen his whole life and has used this Dark Side Socialist/Marxist health care his entire life.

     "I wouldn't be alive today if it weren't for the NHS. I have received a large amount of high quality treatment without which I would not have survived."-Stephen Hawking.

     WOW. If the Smartest Guy in the world isn't afraid of Single Payer, why are the sheep?

     Posted by crabwalk at 08/22/2009 @ 1:07pm

119. Oh, wait, I have NEVER, in my 40 plus years, heard Jesus say anything. Nor do I find any of his own writings. Not a single word that Jesus ever wrote has ever been found. In the 20 years I spent Sundays in Church, I never heard Jesus say anything about the wonders of unregulated capitalism.

     Yet, Larry the Lying Preacher lives his life according to this...Jesus. Larry has never heard Jesus, while in a business meeting or elsewhere. So, how can he know what Jesus said or wanted?

     Posted by crabwalk at 08/22/2009 @ 09:09am

     We aren't talking about 2000 years ago. We are talking the context of current times.

     You are just engaging in your usual nonsense arguments.

     And idiot, I've noted to Mask in a response that Jesus doesn't endorse either capitalism or soclialism.

     You're so wacked out you have no contact with reality.

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/22/2009 @ 1:15pm

120. Posted by antisocialist at 08/22/2009 @ 1:15pm

     Have you ever heard Jesus words?

     If you have never heard Universal Health care debated in a business setting, therefore business do not desire any type of universal coverage...AND you have never heard Jesus...

     YOU want to lecture Me on REALITY?

     Puh-lease.

     "God created Cro-Magnon Man. We can't know why"-Larry The Lying Preacher.

     Why don't you lecture me some more about The Tribulation and my disconnect with reality. Or, better yet, why don't you reference some biblical prophecy while ridiculing my sense of reality.

     Here is some reality:

     Insurance companies regularly ration care.

     Over 50% of bankruptcies in the USA are brought about by medical expenses.

     People die because some faceless bureaucrat in a publicly traded company denies them coverage of a procedure.

     You are not in "the mainstream" of American thought/politics. You are an extremist.

     "The left" has not destroyed the USA, nor is it a threat to you or your family.

     Your beliefs about the Iraq war are based on misinformation, propaganda and fear, not reality.

     Homosexuality is not a perversion. It is as natural as eating meat. (pun intended)

     Posted by crabwalk at 08/22/2009 @ 1:32pm

121. How much did Jesus charge the lepers?

     Posted by crabwalk at 08/22/2009 @ 1:33pm

122. One more bit of reality Larry:

     You are a hypocrite and a willing sinner. Not just an every day run of the mill "we are all sinners", but an actual go out of your way to sin sinner. You regularly lie and bring false witness on these pages. What kind of Holy Man does that?

     Posted by crabwalk at 08/22/2009 @ 1:39pm

123. Homosexuality is not a perversion. It is as natural as eating meat. (pun intended)

     Posted by crabwalk at 08/22/2009 @ 1:32pm

     My previous statements about you stand.

     What percentage of Americans believe the bible is the word of G-d? A majority by every poll

     What percentage of Americans believe in the rapture? Over half according to most polls.

     <A 2002 Time/CNN poll found that 59 percent of Americans believe that the prophecies found in the Book of Revelation are going to come true>

     What percentage of Americans believe homosexuality is a sin and unnatural. the majority according to every major poll.

     What percentage of Americans are worried that the govt plans for taking over healthcare will hurt the economy and cost too much? the majority according to all of the latest polls.

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/22/2009 @ 1:46pm

124. You're so wacked out you have no contact with reality.

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/22/2009 @ 1:15pm | ignore this person |

     Speak for youself there larry boy.

     Posted by kennyboy at 08/22/2009 @ 3:46pm

125. There we go again with family value Santi. All the sinner homosexuals must have affected John Ensign to screw his assistant. Then he said he wasn't as bad as Bill Clinton. He isn't but that's because Bill sold us out for money. How about your friend Mark Sanford. He slipped out of the country to be with his "soul mate". His family doesn't trust,love, or respect him any more. 1 in 10 Americans are out of work. 1 in 10 Americans are in the home foreclosure process. 1 in 6 Americans are uninsured. You think those people would agree to anything you support? Come on ,wake up and smell the coffee. You had better get your bomb shelter ready.

     Posted by whatizz at 08/22/2009 @ 4:15pm

126. What kind of Holy Man does that?

     Posted by crabwalk at 08/22/2009 @ 1:39pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     Self-proclaimed holy man...it's kind of fascinating to observe his (and others like him) hypocrisy.

     Posted by jarshadow at 08/22/2009 @ 4:34pm

127. To listen to people say that caring for others with the help of the government is bad makes my blood boil. It is sickening to see political theories thrown about with little or no knowledge of the theory. To start using different parts of the Scripture to back up points is just sort of unbelievable. When we fast forward back to the present day we see the same people screwing us. Let's make them stop. I know the Bible discussed the money changers at length. I think we all know who is in that group.

     Posted by whatizz at 08/22/2009 @ 5:24pm

128. Posted by whatizz at 08/22/2009 @ 4:15pm

     I am no supporter any longer of either Ensign or Sanford. Not merely because of what they did, but how they have handled themselves since.

     I pray that they humble themselves, withdraw from politics and concentrate on restoring their relationships with G-d and their families.

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/22/2009 @ 5:32pm

129. To listen to people say that caring for others with the help of the government is bad makes my blood boil. It is sickening to see political theories thrown about with little or no knowledge of the theory. To start using different parts of the Scripture to back up points is just sort of unbelievable. When we fast forward back to the present day we see the same people screwing us. Let's make them stop. I know the Bible discussed the money changers at length. I think we all know who is in that group.

     Posted by whatizz at 08/22/2009 @ 5:24pm

     You are distorting what I say.

     I have not said that caring for others with help of the govt is bad.

     1. I support providing a safety net for people.

     2. I said that it is unconstitutional for the FEDERAL GOVT to be involved in healthcare.

     3. I have said that the STATES ARE EMPOWERED to provide healthcare, education, welfare or any other social service they deem appropriate.

     That is a much different position than you and other liberals attempt to attack me with supposedly believing.

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/22/2009 @ 5:36pm

130. "Duh, the USA? We have lots of regulation, yet remain the capitalist Utopia. Imagine that!! Lots of regulations in ALL industries, most are effective, some are not, many are ignored....yet we have multi billionaires, millionaires, millions of small and big businesses. All able to function within markets that are regulated by law. What I cannot figure out is why the Nation cons are so against law. Any ideas?" Posted by crabwalk at 08/22/2009 @ 08:36am

     Duh, the USA, not. We have lots of regulation, none of which prevented the current meltdown. I'm against ineffective, or poorly written laws. Which seem to be what Dems typically pass. So, yeah, I'm for laws that actually do something.

     Posted by twillie at 08/22/2009 @ 5:48pm

131. Glass-Steagle appeared to be quite an effective law...both parties torpedoed that one.

     Posted by jarshadow at 08/22/2009 @ 6:01pm

132. Posted by twillie at 08/22/2009 @ 5:48pm |

     The regulations which could have made a difference (clearing in derivatives like CD swaps) were never put in place...you can't be saved by what you never tried (even though you were warned in no uncertain terms as to the consequences of failing to regulate).

     The problem is that we were knee deep in a culture of 'deregulation is great' from both Pug and DINO sources.

     We may not need protection for the spotty-throated winglefrack, or laws about putting warning labels that say, "don't eat this tag", but we definitely need to protect the structural integrity of our financial system.

     Posted by snowball777 at 08/22/2009 @ 8:05pm

133. Santi- I think you now want to lurk in the shadowy area of states rights. Perhaps that is where you have sat all along. I guess my opinion on that is that it is a place where you can sit and shoot your cannon ala Fort Sumter and say I am for states rights. My viewpoint is that then you are for the plantation and what it stands for. I don't think you can have cake and eat it too. You have to have a different intellectual stake in this conversation. I hope you are not playing this argument but we shall see.

     Posted by whatizz at 08/22/2009 @ 10:24pm

134. Santi- I think you now want to lurk in the shadowy area of states rights. Perhaps that is where you have sat all along. I guess my opinion on that is that it is a place where you can sit and shoot your cannon ala Fort Sumter and say I am for states rights. My viewpoint is that then you are for the plantation and what it stands for. I don't think you can have cake and eat it too. You have to have a different intellectual stake in this conversation. I hope you are not playing this argument but we shall see.

     Posted by whatizz at 08/22/2009 @ 10:24pm

     It's not about states rights, it's about the constitution.

     Do you think that the 10th amendment is just a throwaway statement without meaning?

     Have you even read what the framers intended in forming a govt?

     They didn't want an all powerful govt as they had in Europe. None of the states would have approved that. The constitution is a LIMITING Document. Those are the words of the framers in their letters.

     It limits the Fed while being expansive to the states collectively and the people indidividually.

     Some argued against including the Bill of Rights because they said it was redundant. There were no powers granted in the body of the constitution to put limits on the press or speech or religion or assembly etc.

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/22/2009 @ 10:45pm

135. "We may not need protection for the spotty-throated winglefrack, or laws about putting warning labels that say, "don't eat this tag", but we definitely need to protect the structural integrity of our financial system.' Posted by snowball777 at 08/22/2009 @ 8:05pm

     Well now, that's the rub, isn't it? How do we anticipate the next downturn, and prevent it? Maybe, we should not tinker with the system of risk-and-reward, like we did with the subprime mortgage debacle.

     BTW, I don't think the warning labels are legislated. I think they're placed by companies in an attempt to protect themselves from ambulance-chasing shysters. Who donate alot of money to Dems.

     Posted by twillie at 08/22/2009 @ 11:17pm

136. I give Leslie Savan a lot of credit here. There's none of the usual Obama worship. Even though I think that Lou Dobbs is a mixed-bag, anti-Latino bigot but knowledgeable about business, economics, finance and trade, Dobbs appears to be the ONLY corporate media voice willing to discuss the ways other countries use the Universal Single-Payer health-care model.

     He combines this with to me the correct argument that Single-Payer is better for the economy and provides MORE choices not fewer for the patient. He also dispels myths about doctors not getting paid sufficiently.

     I wish he had mentioned the Conyers/Kucinich HR 676 bill which does resemble the basic ways its done everywhere else. I assume because he's always given airtime to Dennis Kucinich, Dobbs will get around to HR 676 in ways that quite frankly very few NATION writers other than Ms Savan have. I assume this sad state of affairs is a result of the "Obama-luv," but I suppose that's understandable, because at rock-bottom THE NATION is now an "Obama-luv" organ, not for the most part a newsweekly.

     Posted by HebrewHePour at 08/23/2009 @ 06:47am

137. Posted by twillie at 08/22/2009 @ 11:17pm |

     "Well now, that's the rub, isn't it? How do we anticipate the next downturn, and prevent it?"

     Listen to Brooksley Born when she warns us about the inherent dangers of derivatives and CD swaps, for one.

     "Maybe, we should not tinker with the system of risk-and-reward, like we did with the subprime mortgage debacle."

     Or with the St. Germain banking act either (ARM loans).

     "BTW, I don't think the warning labels are legislated. I think they're placed by companies in an attempt to protect themselves from ambulance-chasing shysters. Who donate alot of money to Dems."

     They donate to both parties, be honest.

     Some food for thought (lobbying over the last decade by sector):

     Finance, Ins & RE $3.7B Health $3.5B Agribusiness $1.1B Defense $1B Construction $400M Labor $370M Lawyers $303M

     Is that your final answer?

     Believe me. I sympathize with your attitude about our litigious society...my wife was a claims person until moving to the brokerage side of the insurance biz and has great stories about people who sued who shouldn't have.

     For example, a family of Hmong who found out that venerable grandfather had been buried close to metal from a previous gravesite and sued for their damages from their spiritual beliefs that he was wandering the afterlife upset about it. They were offered a six-figure settlement, but went to trial thinking they could get more and ended up splitting $40k between the 3 of them because they had to hire an expert witness to explain their own religious beliefs for them, which none of them actually knew.

     http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-114277478.html

     Posted by snowball777 at 08/23/2009 @ 07:15am

138. Thanks for your input on lawsuits. It pushed the debate ahead. Did your wife have a specific number of claims she denied? Since she was experiencing headaches before she moved to the real money making side of the business ,iis she feeling better now?

     Posted by whatizz at 08/23/2009 @ 09:01am

139. Posted by whatizz at 08/23/2009 @ 09:01am |

     "Thanks for your input on lawsuits. It pushed the debate ahead. Did your wife have a specific number of claims she denied?"

     You assume a claim was denied. It wasn't. The funeral home director got the representation that he paid for and the insurance company was willing to pay out six-figures to the lying litigants, but they believed they could get $5M dollars from a jury. They were wrong.

     "Since she was experiencing headaches before she moved to the real money making side of the business , is she feeling better now?"

     Much...she gets to help people fight with the insurers to get what's coming to them know and deals with happy customers instead of angry litigants.

     And how is your myopia less constricting to debate?

     Posted by snowball777 at 08/23/2009 @ 09:58am

140. So are discussing tort reform or your wife never seeing a claim denied? My son was injured was hurt playing football at college. He had an MRI which was not covered because it was out of network. Please don't bore me with comments like "myopia". I really don't want to take shots at your wife but please explain to me the principle of accumulating interest. Maybe your wife should have worked for the insurance company that treated us so well.

     Posted by whatizz at 08/23/2009 @ 12:07pm

141. Posted by whatizz at 08/23/2009 @ 12:07pm |

     First, I think tort reform is stupid...it's been proven not to make a difference, even when tried...so don't hang me for sympathizing with Twillie's opinions while not sharing them.

     Second, I argue with my wife about the value of her profession all the time, but I've seen her pay out on some pretty horrific claims too...someone needs to clean up the mess when a forklift falls on a worker by accident.

     Handling pooled risk is a valuable service, even if the company with which you were dealing wasn't on the level...that's doesn't make insurance bad, just that company.

     Third, there's a world of difference between general liability coverage and health insurance, which is why folks like me are FOR SINGLE-PAYER.

     Fourth, my wife won't let our newborn play football when he's old enough, much to my chagrin, for that very reason.

     Posted by snowball777 at 08/23/2009 @ 12:28pm

142. Why would Universal Health Care be unconstitutional? i have heard all sort of silly argumentation against UHC but this is at the top and commensurate with the author.

     Are the FBI or the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) constitutional? Is our Army constitutional? We have come a long way from the Declaration of Independence. The states now are not that far away between themselves almost in anything and inter migration because of work and business has been tremendous in the past 60 years and more.

     Certainly the states would manage the basic principles of UHC as they look fit, but they can't object the program. The EPA for example mandates environmental standards for the whole country and gives the states ways of implementation. Each state can select those standards or more stringent ones never more lax. Has anyone indicated that the program is unconstitutional? If we do that for the health of the environment, why not for human health?

     Posted by Frank42 at 08/23/2009 @ 3:18pm

143. Tort reform? Ask the family of Nataline Sarkisyan how they feel about it.

     Posted by jarshadow at 08/23/2009 @ 4:29pm

144. Posted by Frank42 at 08/23/2009 @ 3:18pm |

     Make no mistake: Anti's anti-Federalist claptrap is often nothing more than an attempt to divide an conquer...if we can't employ minors as miners nationwide, we'll settle for just Vir-ginny, if you will.

     Also the motivation behind the 'we wanna buy insurance across state lines' gibberish...all smoke and mirrors designed to allow the more whorish states in the union (e.g. Texas) to undermine the statutes of their neighbors by proxy (as several courts in Texas are currently doing with patent law, unfortunately).

     I agree with him somewhat on the initial motivations of the founders...each colony was paranoid about the other's angles...Protestants giving the stink-eye to the Catholics...a bad scene...so they met with the compromise of our bicameral setup and some rules about how much they could boss each other around, but the idea that the 10th exists to prevent states from accepting help from the Feds is ludicrous.

     Heaps of SCOTUS decisions uphold that claim and Anti knows it, though he's reticent to leggo his desire to live in the 18th century, ignoring anything beyond Jefferson's first win as historical evidence.

     Posted by snowball777 at 08/23/2009 @ 4:30pm

145. This really doesn't mean much. It's no surprise that Scarborough got confused, because he is one of the less clever talking heads.

     Posted by belletier at 08/23/2009 @ 7:51pm

146. Posted by sntauri at 08/21/2009 @ 10:16pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     whattabunchofnonsense.

     Posted by emile duBois at 08/23/2009 @ 7:58pm

147. Fourth, my wife won't let our newborn play football when he's old enough, much to my chagrin, for that very reason. Posted by snowball777 at 08/23/2009 @ 12:28pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     she's wrong on this one, but she has a few years to figure it out.

     full disclosure, my son broke his wrist playing touch football.

     as you look at your little bundle of joy, one thing you can be fairly sure of: there will be blood.

     Posted by emile duBois at 08/23/2009 @ 8:02pm

148. so they met with the compromise of our bicameral setup and some rules about how much they could boss each other around, but the idea that the 10th exists to prevent states from accepting help from the Feds is ludicrous.

     Heaps of SCOTUS decisions uphold that claim and Anti knows it, though he's reticent to leggo his desire to live in the 18th century, ignoring anything beyond Jefferson's first win as historical evidence.

     Posted by snowball777 at 08/23/2009 @ 4:30pm |

     Of course I NEVER said that the 10th amendment exists to prevent states from accepting help from the FED.

     Does that mean that it was intended for individuals to get financial help from the FED?

     The wording betrays your statement.

     <The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.>

     It says powers are reserved to the states respectively or to the people

     Why do liberals have such a difficult time with such a simple and clear statement?

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/23/2009 @ 8:29pm

149. Heaps of SCOTUS decisions uphold that claim and Anti knows it, though he's reticent to leggo his desire to live in the 18th century, ignoring anything beyond Jefferson's first win as historical evidence.

     Posted by snowball777 at 08/23/2009 @ 4:30pm

     Are you suggesting that SCOTUS never gets a decision wrong? Be careful

     Isn't it ironic (LOL) that the SCOTUS Court that found this expansion of Congressional authority occurred during FDR?

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/23/2009 @ 8:31pm

150. My argument in the insurance game is that it is legalized theft. I am tired of hearing about "risk". When a United Health makes a larger profit from a smaller base of customers it goes beyond insuring" Risk". Conversely the state of Florida has to insure it's residents against hurricanes because these pillars of the community(State Farm,etc) ran out on the citizens because of higher risk and less profit. Why are conservatives supporting this form of "control" over the population. Why do people like Santi have a problem with such a clear and simple statement?

     Posted by whatizz at 08/24/2009 @ 08:24am

151. <i>Posted by antisocialist at 08/23/2009 @ 8:31pm </i>

     A lot of those decisions were also just correct. They said, for instance, that the power to regulate interstate commerce actually meant that the federal government could, you know, regulate interstate commerce. That wasn't an expansion of Congressional authority, it was the recognition that denying their authority based on the imposition of a conservative economic theory was contrary to what the Constitution intended.

     Posted by Thrawn at 08/24/2009 @ 09:33am

152. Posted by antisocialist at 08/23/2009 @ 8:31pm |

     Of course not, but we need a higher standard than "Larry doesn't like it" to declare a decision `wrong'.

     I'm not the one playing sore loser vis a vis the interpretation of the 10th.

     If you want to hear me complain, let's talk about Buckley v Valeo.

     If you ask me, they could've done a much better job, syntactically, of expressing their wishes in the amendment than, "nor prohibited to it by the States".

     "Does that mean that it was intended for individuals to get financial help from the FED?"

     You yourself claim the Constitution is a limiting document and it isn't limiting this behavior (in the opinions of the Supremes).

     Intended? Perhaps not.

     Allowed? Most definitely.

     Posted by snowball777 at 08/24/2009 @ 10:23am

153. these threads have become liverty at all times, and his detractors. whatta crashing bore.

     c'mon kids, answering liverty is too easy. the guy's a nutcase. let's set the bar a bit higher, shall we?

     Posted by emile duBois at 08/24/2009 @ 10:27am

154. This article gives me hope that perhaps some conservatives can "get it". This is perhaps the defining moment in our generation. THE chance to get the ball rolling towards single payer. If we lose now, what happens? You can't just recover from that a year later. Ask Hillary, or Kennedy. Opportunities like this come along once in a life time. If that. I hope Obama will answer the clarion call of his supporters letters and calls, and stick with a public option.

     Posted by konquererz at 08/24/2009 @ 10:50am

155. If anyone can tell me, as Rep. Weiner asked, "What are the insurance companies bringing to the table?" This isn't about government taking over healthcare, it is about government giving healthcare back to us. There is no political argument that can answer this simple question. The health insurance industry has poisoned the free market of health care delivery and anyone who can't understand that needs to re-examine their motives. Do you want to have a pay-out system that pays for your medical care or one that skims a little off the top to advertise and lobby against your own self-interests? Would you prefer police protection of mafioso protection? Imagine the fire department in this fucked up scenario. If you don't have fireman insurance, even if your house is on fire, the truck'll drive right on by. Some people do get to save their house because they are lucky enough to have fireman insurance, but they have to watch comercials about the pretty new trucks in firehouse A or the more buff firemen in firehouse B paid for by skimming off the top of the premiums. Would this be acceptable to any of us?

     Posted by HAL9000 at 08/24/2009 @ 11:16am

156. c'mon kids, answering liverty is too easy. the guy's a nutcase. let's set the bar a bit higher, shall we?

     Posted by emile duBois at 08/24/2009 @ 10:27am

     After 4+ years, I'm still waiting for an example from you of a cogent rebuttal.

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/24/2009 @ 11:37am

157. Posted by HAL9000 at 08/24/2009 @ 11:16am | ignore this person | warn this person

     amusing, droll even. and on target.

     Posted by emile duBois at 08/24/2009 @ 11:40am

158. Posted by BigPasture at 08/20/2009 @ 10:36pm

     Your logic seems highly dubious. You seem to be confusing profits with budget surpluses. Besides, where do you think that profit is coming from? Maybe, just maybe, that $744 million in unexercised stock options owned by CEO Stephen Hemsley comes out of premiums paid by their customers. Or maybe, just maybe, a way to increase profits is to deny claims. Seems highly likely that not only would they do just this, but that profit motive would also encourage questionable interpretations of the term "experimental procedure."

     Posted by nkurland at 08/24/2009 @ 11:48am

159. 'Only people with colonized minds believe these things are positive, or that this type of "progress" can be beneficial to anyone beyond a small circle of exploiter-elites. And, as to be expected, there is no end to the number of those who seek to compensate for their own personal impotence by over-identifying with these grotesque displays of obscene state-corporate power.' -- Surrealist Group in the US. -- CounterPunch.org -- 21 August, 2009 -- http://www. counterpunch.org/darksi deofthemo on0821200 9.html

     Posted by HonestLiberal at 08/24/2009 @ 11:51am

160. GWB was, of course, not elected in 2000. Therefore "re-elected" doesn't describe 2004, but it is a shining example of US citizens being conned once again by the rich, powerful, selfish and immoral minority into voting against their self interest.

     This so-called "debate" over healthcare reform wouldn't even be taking place if those same forces were not capable of orchestrating their media lackeys into giving "a fair hearing" to the people who contend that the moon is made from green cheese (after all, we can't be 100% sure that it isn't, now can we?).

     Let me hereby issue a plea to all to collect as much verifiable information as possible for yourself, and reach a conclusion based on your own reasoning- eschewing the partisan rhetoric being spewed by both parties. For me, the primary objective of any healthcare legislation should be lowering the astronomical costs inflicted on all of us (insured or not). I simply don't see any way of doing this apart from providing real competition (a public option) to the health insurance monopolies. A "co-op" cannot expect any better treatment from the insurers than Wal-Mart employees or state government workers who are seeing their premiums and co-payments spiral upward on a continuing basis. Please be aware as you reflect on the value of any legislation (or lack thereof) that when their huge profits and bonuses are threatened, the purveyors of the status quo will do ANYTHING to protect themselves.

     Posted by comatoast at 08/24/2009 @ 12:09pm

161. Gallup Poll. Rolling average. N=approx. 1,600 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

     "Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as president?"

     Date __________Approve__Disapprove

     8/20-22/09_______54_______38

     8/19-21/09_______ 53_______40

     8/18-20/09_______53_______40

     8/17-19/09 _______ 51_______42

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/24/2009 @ 12:30pm

162. It's morally wrong to leave 100 million Americans un or underinsured, 1 illness away from financial ruin. And it's wrong to burden small business with the outrageous insurance costs also -- found a cool site; Balkingpoints ; incredible satellite view of earth

     Posted by reg373 at 08/24/2009 @ 1:19pm

163. I heard Rep. Anthony Weiner on the radio this morning, he talks a lot. First, Medicare and Medicaid are subsidized by private insurance, that's never mentioned. A Physician called in, said Medicare and Medicaid don't pay enough (a mechanic gets more per hr) Weiner had no response other than he'll feel better dealing with policy makers than insurance companies. I think the doctor's jaw is still agape. Weiner cited two hospitals closed in Queens but failed to note they closed because Medicare and Medicaid don't pay enough to cover those "public" hospital payrolls controlled by Dennis Rivera union. Weiner was talking about a wholly government run system when he brought up those failed hospitals. So to answer the question why have private insurance? Answer, cooperative pools of healthcare monies to pay privately generated cost of care. Medicare doesn't pay the cost of care and an entire system of this means one thing, rationing.

     Also, Medicare adm costs are a lower as a percent because, elderly use more, the numerator is larger! If you look at adm costs in dollars per patient it's a very small gap. No-one is ever going to quantify "cost savings" anyway, it's in form with economic concepts such as "jobs gained or saved". Weiner brought up the Wal-Mart drugs but he neglected to mention that these are commodity generics that the government also gets in on at Walmart prices. He also neglected to say that the governments' idea of "negotiating" is price control, not value. Quick, what's a DRG? So maybe the Nation editors, and readers, can stop with the "we got Scarborough" nonsense and begin recognizing that there are valid concerns to a government single payer plan and demonizing and name calling is a copout response to them.

     Posted by hughm8 at 08/24/2009 @ 1:24pm

164. Well Santi is anything the same in 200 years. Writings are the same I suppose but are the inflections ? Buildings have the same shape but can they speak ? The America of 200 years ago was a place where people had gone to get away from a monarchy. They had come here to escape tyranny and exploitation. Now a large section of our people are being exploited in this great issue ofd health care reform. The large insurance concerns are using their power to reap huge profits. In no other country in the world are people going bankrupt from the effects of poor health care coverage. So Santi go hide out and think about the modern day comparison. Maybe it was just easier to get rickets.

     Posted by whatizz at 08/24/2009 @ 1:34pm

165. First, Medicare and Medicaid are subsidized by private insurance, that's never mentioned.

     Posted by hughm8 at 08/24/2009 @ 1:24pm

     I heard a caller on the radio last night who was talking about the DOJ prosecuting medicare fraud cases. The radio program host was incredulous at the rampant fraud and asked about the penalty. "Do they have to pay 120% back?"

     Oh no, no. It's much less than 100% that they have to pay back. If they had to pay it all back, they'd bankrupt the companies and the DOJ doesn't want to to that.

     So, if medicare pay a rate that would bankrupt providers, how the hell does expanding medicare for everyone make any sense at all?

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/24/2009 @ 1:55pm

166. Medicare (same thing as Single Payer Universal Healthcare) is not unconstitutional and our means of passing such a bill is what protects it from being a Marxist/Socialist policy. If you are concerned about socialism, please read the works of Carl Marx and do not take other people's advice about what socialism is. In addition, no one has claimed that medicare is unconstitutional. All Rep. Weirner is proposing is to offer a version of Medicare to all.

     Now that that is covered, the concerns I have are this...

     1). Any plan should guarantee the government's ability to engage in capitalism as any other entity can do and negotiate for lower prices. Republicans before they were ousted from congress passed Medicare reform that prevents Medicare from negotiating with the big Pharmaceutical companies as medicare had previously done and as the VA and Walmart do. They only purpose that served was to guarantee big profits for the pharmaceuticals on the back of the tax payer and the detriment of our seniors. 2). That is something like this is not enacted, we will continue to pay ever rising costs. Costs by big pharma and insurance companies to ensure they reach ever growing profits (and paying for their lying ads and lining of politicians pockets and skewed statistics). Costs by the medical industry to cover those who are treated who do not have insurance. What you didn't realize that we are already paying for those who do not have insurance??? 3). People die from poor care (if any) because they do not have insurance. Those who do go to the emergency rooms have their costs passed onto those with insurance.I used to work for a doctor's office. It is a common practice to offer those without insurance lower rates than those with insurance, who end up flipping the bill.

     Posted by mysticcantina at 08/24/2009 @ 2:23pm

167. It is a common practice to offer those without insurance lower rates than those with insurance, who end up flipping the bill. Posted by mysticcantina at 08/24/2009 @ 2:23pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     actually the opposite is true. those without insurance are charged MORE.

     Posted by emile duBois at 08/24/2009 @ 2:30pm

168. <Any plan should guarantee the government's ability to engage in capitalism as any other entity can do and negotiate for lower prices.

     Posted by mysticcantina at 08/24/2009 @ 2:23pm>

     1. Govt is not a business.

     2. There is no competition despite the lies of Obama. The govt controls the money. They get to print more if they need it. They can operate at a deficit indefinitely, unlike private enterprise.

     They can coerce and intimidate suppliers and providers through the use of the IRS and other govt institutions.

     3. Yes they can negotiate lower prices. But that means that private businesses and especially doctors either go bankrupt or agree to earn very little. How many people do you think will enter the medical field to become phsyicians if they are limited to making $50-60k per year as is the case in France?

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/24/2009 @ 2:44pm

169. Posted by hughm8 at 08/24/2009 @ 1:24pm

     Go back to AHIP, shill. Again, why do we need to advertise health insurance? To feel OK about getting raped? The emperor has indeed lost his clothes. What does the insurance industry do to improve healthcare? Do they provide check-ups? No, doctors and nurses do. Do they write prescriptions? Who is in between us and our doctors RIGHT NOW and why?

     Posted by HAL9000 at 08/24/2009 @ 3:46pm

170. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/24/2009 @ 1:55pm |

     There's a big difference between paying back 10 years worth of fraudulent charges at once and running Medicare.

     C'mon, Darin, you usually make more sense than this.

     Posted by snowball777 at 08/24/2009 @ 3:48pm

171. What does the insurance industry do to improve healthcare? Do they provide check-ups? No, doctors and nurses do. Do they write prescriptions? Who is in between us and our doctors RIGHT NOW and why?

     Posted by HAL9000 at 08/24/2009 @ 3:46pm

     Then pay cash. But keep the govt out of healthcare.

     Eliminate Medicare while we're at it.

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/24/2009 @ 4:01pm

172. The general belief we Americans have been fed that the consideration of a Single Payer Health Care system is naive and unrealistic is based on the line of thinking that corporate management is all we have and we are stuck with it for national economic reasons. A self diminishing, self effacing ideology that serves only the greed of powerful companies that have so undermined the individual to the point of considering the needs of citizens to be secondary to profit making for the private corporate entity. Both are absolutely false assessments. As the absoluteness of their take over has settled, the greed (which is a predictable consequence of unregulated corporate business practices) has resulted in higher than acceptable costs, lower quality services and the preying upon the less fortunate. As far as the economic impact, it is unlikely that the lower cost of health care could have a negative impact. It is logical that it would rather stimulate growth as individuals' assets would not become hostage to an industry geared to indiscriminately prey on medical patients at their most vulnerable time. Medicine should be a socialy oriented activity not exclusively a status and profit making field. Is this a naive line of thought?

     Posted by Gustav at 08/24/2009 @ 4:08pm

173. 1. Govt is not a business.

     2. There is no competition despite the lies of Obama. The govt controls the money. They get to print more if they need it. They can operate at a deficit indefinitely, unlike private enterprise.

     They can coerce and intimidate suppliers and providers through the use of the IRS and other govt institutions.

     3. Yes they can negotiate lower prices. But that means that private businesses and especially doctors either go bankrupt or agree to earn very little. How many people do you think will enter the medical field to become phsyicians if they are limited to making $50-60k per year as is the case in France?

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/24/2009 @ 2:44pm

     Hmmm I wonder why all those doctors keep working in France. Could it be that they like their jobs and have a calling to medicine. Before you go making France the brunt of your rants you might want check a few facts about the French health care system. Which cost about half per capita than ours does and has better results.

     The word is physicians, not phsyicians. Physicians in France do well, they also have free medical training and from what I gather are pretty content with their lot in life. Oh, and they make house calls.

     Posted by jeffe at 08/24/2009 @ 4:14pm

174. Hmmm I wonder why all those doctors keep working in France. Could it be that they like their jobs and have a calling to medicine. Before you go making France the brunt of your rants you might want check a few facts about the French health care system. Which cost about half per capita than ours does and has better results.

     The word is physicians, not phsyicians. Physicians in France do well, they also have free medical training and from what I gather are pretty content with their lot in life. Oh, and they make house calls.

     Posted by jeffe at 08/24/2009 @ 4:14pm

     I have recently posted that the system in France is going under financially. It is getting so far in the red that they are faced with an additional tax increase.

     Furthermore, doctors in France earn less than doctors here have to pay for malpractice insurance.

     Obama was booed by the AMA when he recently declared that he would not seek to cap malpractice lawsuits. He did that because he is owned by the trial lawyers who are one of his top donors.

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/24/2009 @ 4:35pm

175. C'mon, Darin, you usually make more sense than this.

     Posted by snowball777 at 08/24/2009 @ 3:48pm

     Seriously, name one crime where the "penalty" is to pay back 50% of what you stole.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/24/2009 @ 4:42pm

176. How many people do you think will enter the medical field to become phsyicians if they are limited to making $50-60k per year as is the case in France?

     antisocialist at 08/24/2009 @ 2:44pm

     Think again.

     "the average physician's net income declined 7 percent from 1995 to 2003, after adjusting for inflation, while incomes of lawyers and other professionals rose by 7 percent during the period."

     According to the American Medical Student Association (AMSA), the median debt for students at a public medical school is over $119,000 while those that go to a private medical school will carry a median debt of nearly $150,000. On top of debt, physicians make approximately $48,000 during their years during residency -- which lasts at least 3 years. It could take up to 8 years for a thoracic surgeon to complete his/her training.

     http://tinyurl.com/knhowv

     http://tinyurl.com/nr29e8

     USA med school - $150-300K; in France - €150.00 to €0.00 a year!

     "The quasi-monopoly of Assurance Maladie makes it the country's largest buyer of medical services. That gives it clout to keep the fees charged by doctors low. About 90% of general practitioners in France have an agreement with Assurance Maladie specifying that they can't charge more than €22 (about $32) for a consultation. For house calls they can add €3.50 to the bill.

     By comparison, under Medicare, doctors are paid $91.97 for a first visit and $124.97 for a moderately complex consultation, according to the American College of Physicians.

     In France, "If you are in medical care for the money, you'd better change jobs," says Marc Lanfranchi, a general practitioner from Nancy, an eastern town. On the other hand, medical school is paid for by the government, and malpractice insurance is much cheaper."

     http://tinyurl.com/m8f5gh

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/24/2009 @ 5:27pm

177. In France, "If you are in medical care for the money, you'd better change jobs," says Marc Lanfranchi, a general practitioner from Nancy, an eastern town. On the other hand, medical school is paid for by the government, and malpractice insurance is much cheaper."

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/24/2009 @ 5:27pm

     Seems like you made my point.

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/24/2009 @ 5:40pm

178. House calls in France for an additional €3.50!

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/24/2009 @ 5:41pm

179. On the other hand, medical school is paid for by the government, and malpractice insurance is much cheaper."

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/24/2009 @ 5:27pm

     Seems like you made my point.

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/24/2009 @ 5:40pm

     You obviously have a problem with quantity vs quality. More people/babies in the USA die sooner than in France. And in France people pay a lot less for healthcare from doctors that are there for them because they care more for the people than for the gold.

     UUHHmmmm. What would Jesus like better?

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/24/2009 @ 5:52pm

180. One can always spot an antichristion by their obsession on the gold versus the care.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/24/2009 @ 5:54pm

181. <The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.>

     It says powers are reserved to the states respectively or to the people

     Why do liberals have such a difficult time with such a simple and clear statement?

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/23/2009 @ 8:29pm

     I don't. I just don't buy your states' rights argument and believe the Welfare clause gives adequate Constitutional justification for Universal Health Care.

     But I am curious, Larry...if the People decided, say by voting in a majority of like-minded representatives into both the House and Senate, along with a President who has expressed a desire to fix a specific national problem...for grins let's call it the healthcare system...by giving the federal government the power to become involved in said healthcare system, would that be an illegal granting of power (reserved for the People [or the states]) to the Federal Government?

     In other words, if the People jointly and through election of representatives, decide to grant a power to the Federal government (like healthcare, or the fight against the tactic known as terrorism, or the regulation of the air we breathe), is that somehow un-Constitutional?

     I cannot possibly think of how you'll answer this, except perhaps to say that the granting of power from the People to the government is somehow a socialist plot to destroy America.

     But really, isn't it the right of the People, as you currently interpret the Constitution, for the People to do exactly that?

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/24/2009 @ 5:56pm

182. How many people do you think will enter the medical field to become phsyicians if they are limited to making $50-60k per year as is the case in France?

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/24/2009 @ 2:44pm

     So, you're implying the only reason people become doctors is to get rich.

     So sad. Hippocrates and Asclepius are turning over in their graves as we speak (well, one of them is anyway).

     What's wrong with $50 or $60 K for a doctor? Still more than teachers make. oooops, then I guess we'll have to fix that little problems with medical schools, won't we....?

     To answer your question, perhaps people who have a general interest in helping others and find cures for diseases will do become physicians.

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/24/2009 @ 6:15pm

183. Santi- again you digress into your states rights claptrap. You keep this up and I think I will believe you are an incarnation of Lester Maddox.

     Posted by whatizz at 08/24/2009 @ 6:15pm

184. You obviously have a problem with quantity vs quality. More people/babies in the USA die sooner than in France. And in France people pay a lot less for healthcare from doctors that are there for them because they care more for the people than for the gold.

     UUHHmmmm. What would Jesus like better?

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/24/2009 @ 5:52pm

     France does not count babies who die in the first day in their infant mortality rates. They count them as stillborns.

     Conversely, the US does follow the definition by WHO and counts these in their infant mortality numbers.

     Likewise, many other countries refuse to follow the WHO rules and thus have lower infant mortality rates.

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/24/2009 @ 6:46pm

185. I don't. I just don't buy your states' rights argument and believe the Welfare clause gives adequate Constitutional justification for Universal Health Care.

     But really, isn't it the right of the People, as you currently interpret the Constitution, for the People to do exactly that?

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/24/2009 @ 5:56pm

     The answer to your argument is no and both conservatives and liberals have rightly failed when trying to make that argument.

     Again, you and other liberals act like I'm trying to privately interpret the constitution when I have simply applied the explanations by the men who wrote it who said that you CANNOT interpret the general welfare clause to mean whatever the people want it to mean.

     Their statements are concise and clear.

     <"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."

     Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Albert Gallatin, 1817>

     Madison clearly states that issues like health and general wellbeing are for the states to address.

     < "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."

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/24/2009 @ 6:57pm

186. So, you're implying the only reason people become doctors is to get rich.

     So sad. Hippocrates and Asclepius are turning over in their graves as we speak (well, one of them is anyway).

     What's wrong with $50 or $60 K for a doctor? Still more than teachers make. oooops, then I guess we'll have to fix that little problems with medical schools, won't we....?

     To answer your question, perhaps people who have a general interest in helping others and find cures for diseases will do become physicians.

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/24/2009 @ 6:15pm

     1. Nowhere did I say "rich", nor that it was the only reason for practicing medicine.

     2. 50 or 60 is not more than teachers make, especially in CA.

     <According to the CTA's parent union, the National Education Association, California teachers were the nation's top-paid, with $64,424 average annual salary in 2007-08.

     Don't take just the NEA's word for it. The other mammoth national public school teacher union, the American Federation of Teachers AFL-CIO, said the year before the CTA study that "for the second consecutive year, California had the highest average teacher salary in 2006-07 at $63,640, or about 25 percent above the national average.">

     http://tinyurl.com/c8ehq5

     Plus they only work 9-10 months out of the year. Based upon 10 months that means they make the equivalent of someone working the full year earning $77,308.

     And many, especially at the college level are earning in the 150-200k per year.

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/24/2009 @ 7:09pm

187. Posted by antisocialist at 08/24/2009 @ 7:09pm |

     Same old tricks...ignoring the cost of living in CA, which is 175% of the national average...what a maroon.

     And very few professors are pulling down those salaries outside of Stanford and USC.

     Posted by snowball777 at 08/24/2009 @ 7:27pm

188. Same old tricks...ignoring the cost of living in CA, which is 175% of the national average...what a maroon.

     And very few professors are pulling down those salaries outside of Stanford and USC.

     Posted by snowball777 at 08/24/2009 @ 7:27pm

     In my city of Moreno Valley, right now you can buy a 3000 sq ft home less than 5 years old on a 10000 sq ft lot for under 200k. Easily affordable on a teachers pay.

     Or they could simply buy a home of 1400-2000 sq ft for under 125-140k. Again easily affordable.

     And another way of looking at this. Teacher makes the average of 65k. Spouse earns just 35k per year. That's a 6 figure family income and you can live very comfortably.

     I know, my wife and I have done it for over a decade. I have only had 2 years in this decade over 50k in earnings. Most years I have been at 30-35k working part time.

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/24/2009 @ 7:33pm

189. Slaves were part of state regulation am I correct? Also I am sure we are not speaking of day laborers writing the Articles of Confederation are we ? We are not really talking about the educators of our youth being overpaid are we? Perhaps we should all become junk dealers like Fred Sanford. Then we could buy a reasonably priced home,act green, and live comfortably.

     Posted by whatizz at 08/24/2009 @ 7:46pm

190. "To answer your question, perhaps people who have a general interest in helping others and find cures for diseases will do become physicians." Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/24/2009 @ 6:15pm

     Stunningly ignorant. Do you want to be operated on by someone who has a "general interest in helping others", but got a D in anatomy, and was more interested in a good nights sleep in residency?

     Medicine currently attracts some of the smartest, hardest working people in the country, because it allows you to make a good living. Take away the financial reward, and see how many people you have clamoring for 70 to 80 hour workweeks at $60,000 a year ($15 an hour).

     Yeah, it sounds mercenary, but it's also reality. And, BTW, doctor's fees make up only 20% of health care expenditures.

     Posted by twillie at 08/24/2009 @ 11:01pm

191. France does not count babies who die in the first day in their infant mortality rates. They count them as stillborns.

     Conversely, the US does follow the definition by WHO and counts these in their infant mortality numbers. Likewise, many other countries refuse to follow the WHO rules and thus have lower infant mortality rates.

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/24/2009 @ 6:46pm

     Link please. Back it up or you're once a again a proven antichristian.

     As far I see their stats are standardized or else they couldn't be compared:

     http://www.who.int/whosis/whostat/EN_WHS09_Table2.pdf

     http://www.who.int/whosis/whostat/EN_WHS09_TOCintro.pdf

     http://www.who.int/whosis/whostat/2009/en/index.html

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/25/2009 @ 01:30am

192. Stunningly ignorant. Do you want to be operated on by someone who has a "general interest in helping others", but got a D in anatomy, and was more interested in a good nights sleep in residency?

     Posted by twillie at 08/24/2009 @ 11:01pm

     That 'D' must stand for straw DILDO!?!?

     Stop pulling things out of your ass.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/25/2009 @ 08:07am

193. HAL9000: "Go back to AHIP, shill. Again, why do we need to advertise health insurance? To feel OK about getting raped?"

     HAL9000, you go for a check up and make extra time for the doctors that deal with the head.

     Posted by hughm8 at 08/25/2009 @ 09:47am

194. Eberstadt notes "underreporting also seems apparent in the proportion of infant deaths different countries report for the first 24 hours after birth. In Australia, Canada and the United States, over one-third of all infant deaths are reported to take place in the first day."

     In contrast, "Less than one-sixth of France's infant deaths are reported to occur in the first day of life. In Hong Kong, such deaths account for only one-twenty-fifth of all infant deaths."

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/25/2009 @ 5:16pm

     1. That Canada has a lower infant mortality rate than the USA is then not in dispute a la their socialist healthcare system:

     http://tinyurl.com/2d5ael

     2. Would not then France/Southern Europe have a much higher stillbirth rate than the USA-- if what is alleged is that they're simply moving the numbers over to another stat category? But that too isn't so:

     http://tinyurl.com/ksrl29

     Not only does France have a lower infant mortality rate, but also has a close to lower stillbirth rate to the USA!

     Are you now going to argue that WHO and Europe secretly rendition the dead baby bodies to hidden places in order not to count them?

     Uhm Eberstadt? Would he happen to be The Nicholas Eberstadt, who holds the Henry Wendt chair in political economy at the American Enterprise Institute?

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/25/2009 @ 11:22pm

     Posted by hsuBfools at 08/26/2009 @ 08:23am

195. "Less than one-sixth of France's infant deaths are reported to occur in the first day of life.

     fewer than...

     Posted by emile duBois at 08/26/2009 @ 09:03am