Obama v. McCain: "Fundamental Difference" on Health Care

posted by John Nichols on 10/07/2008 @ 10:56pm

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (82)

Subscribe Now

NASHVILLE -- Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama offered radically different responses to what was arguably the best question asked so far in any of this year's debates.

Addressing Obama, a woman in the studio audience at the second presidential debate on the Nashville campus of Belmont University said, "Senator, selling health care coverage in America as the marketable commodity has become a very profitable industry."

Then, she asked, "Do you believe health care should be treated as a commodity?"

Obama responded at some length, without actually answering the question.

McCain did the same.

Moderator Tom Brokaw pressed the point.

"Quick discussion: Is health care in America a privilege, a right, or a responsibility?" said the NBC newsman. "Senator McCain?"

"I think it's a responsibility," responded the Republican nominee for president.

McCain then rambled through a torturous attempt at an answer, ranting about "government mandates" and griping about the requirements that would, necessarily, go with any univeral program to provide health care for all.

Brokaw then turned to Obama.

"Well, I think it should be a right for every American," the Democrats declared. "In a country as wealthy as ours, for us to have people who are going bankrupt because they can't pay their medical bills -- for my mother to die of cancer at the age of 53 and have to spend the last months of her life in the hospital room arguing with insurance companies because they're saying that this may be a pre-existing condition and they don't have to pay her treatment, there's something fundamentally wrong about that."

On a night when both candidates continued to dance around the economic crisis -- more frequently pointing fingers of blame than offering programs for renewal -- and when they repeated their stances on foreign policy issues involving Iraq, Iran, Israel, Afghanistan and Pakistan, the essential line of distinction was drawn by the candidates themselves on the essential issue of health care reform.

At a point in the American journey when tens of millions of Americans have no health care coverage, when tens of millions of additional Americans have insufficient coverage and when tens of millions more worry about losing not just a job but the health care benefits that go with employment, the difference between a candidate who says that health care is "a right" versus one who says that it is "a responsibility" could not be more stark.

Obama referred to "this fundamental difference," and he was correct.

It is easy, and appropriate, to criticize Obama and McCain for offering inperfect, and inadequate, proposals for addressing this country's health care crisis. Neither man supports the single-payer health care reform that really would provide care for all while controlling prices.

But as the two contenders outlined their proposals for health care reform, the depth of their difference became clear.

McCain said, "(What) is at stake here in this health care issue is the fundamental difference between myself and Senator Obama. As you notice, he starts talking about government. He starts saying, government will do this and government will do that, and then government will, and he'll impose mandates."

In particular, the Arizonan griped about rules that limit the ability of insurance companies to sell policies across state lines.

Obama explained why the rules matter.

"(The) reason that it's a problem to go shopping state by state -- you know what insurance companies will do, they will find a state -- maybe Arizona, maybe another state, where there are no requirements for you to get cancer screenings, where there are no requirements for you to have to get pre-existing conditions, and they will all set up shop there," began the senator from Illinois.

Then he landed the bluntest blow.

"That's how in banking it works," said Obama. "Everybody goes to Delaware, because they've got... pretty loose laws when it comes to things like credit cards. And in that situation, what happens is... that the protections you have, the consumer protections that you need, you're not going to have available to you."

"That," he concluded, "is a fundamental difference that I have with Senator McCain. He believes in deregulation in every circumstance. That's what we've been going through for the last eight years. It hasn't worked, and we need fundamental change."

That comparison of McCain's response to the health-care crisis -- deregulation -- with the missteps and misdeeds that created the current financial crisis was as spot on as it was devastating.

When it comes to the health care debate, these candidates are not two sides of the same coin.

Barack Obama believes that health care is a right -- something every American should be able to access when they are in need of care.

John McCain believes that health care is a responsibility -- a burden that some Americans will be able to shoulder while some will not.

Access to adequate health care is not just about check ups and medical care. It is about the quality of our lives. And, ultimately, about life and death. That makes health care a moral issue.

Barack Obama recognizes this fundamental fact.

John McCain does not.

Comments (82)

yeah - obama busted mccain on that one good...

especially the interstate thing. well done, barry o...

Posted by dexter666 at 10/07/2008 @ 10:58pm
Now, what is Barack's plan to address the downward spiraling credit markets?

This is where it's gonna get really interesting, really soon.

Posted by b_kool_66 at 10/07/2008 @ 11:20pm
The interstate thing was very pointed in relation to our economy today. I think that was definitely a solid blow delivered from him.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/07/2008 @ 11:23pm
On health care, Obama's US Chamber of Commerce comment was good... McCain was prepared for this topic and did pretty well, but relied on 'do the math my friends' too much. Put him in the position = 'you're probably so poor it'd work out for you but I can't really relate'.

The general sincerity of Obama, empathy with the middle class, especially linking other costs, $3.80 -- and even the comment that he doesn't need the help as much as they do, rather than I was once in your shoes was strong, as we all know he was once lower / middle class.

Subtle way of keeping the focus on the issue, very presidential. McFeign kept up the you can't trust him, but this fragments when he unravel taxing people on their health plans, well you come out better, do the math... Weak.

Posted by winyahn at 10/07/2008 @ 11:24pm
Now, what is Barack's plan to address the downward spiraling credit markets?

This is where it's gonna get really interesting, really soon.

Posted by b_kool_66 at 10/07/2008 @ 11:20pm | ignore this person | warn this person

new deal part 2. wait til after the inaugration.

Posted by dexter666 at 10/07/2008 @ 11:24pm
Obama for Treasury Secy? Why not? With this money avalanche, let Obama be Obama?

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

Obama Outspending McCain Nearly 3 to 1 on Television Tuesday, Oct. 7, 2008. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak

Barack Obama is outspending John McCain at nearly a three-to-one clip on television time in the final weeks of the presidential election, according to ad buy information obtained by The Fix, a financial edge that is almost certainly contributing to the momentum for the Illinois senator in key battleground states.

From Sept. 30 to Oct. 6, Obama spent more than $20 million on television ads in 17 states including more than $3 million in Pennsylvania and more than $2 million each in Florida, Michigan and Ohio. McCain in that same time frame spent just $7.2 million in 15 states.

Posted by HelenDAO at 10/07/2008 @ 11:31pm
Ironic that Obama of all people would advocate for slavery.

Leaving aside for a moment that Obama just created a "right" out of thin air, right before our very eyes, he believes you have a "right to health care." Now lets analyze that statement in more detail. Health care is a service--a service provided by doctors, nurses, dentists, therapists, etc. So when Obama says people have a "right" to those services, he is also implying that the health care providers CANNOT refuse to provide them. After all, if it is your "right" how can it be refused to you? That brings us back to my original statement. Obama is stating that American citizens have a right to the services of others, i.e slavery. You would think he would know better.

Well done, indeed.

Posted by dailycomfort at 10/07/2008 @ 11:32pm
It's a "right"? Where exactly in the Constitution is that? I think everyone should have access to health care. But a right?

And, since when do we have to pay to exercise our "rights"?Let's do health care like the Dutch.

Posted by twillie at 10/07/2008 @ 11:33pm
<b>That comparison of McCain's response to the health-care crisis -- deregulation -- with the missteps and misdeeds that created the current financial crisis was as spot on as it was devastating. </b>

The most frustrating thing about statements such as this is that it completely ignores the fact that the blame for this financial situation can be laid, for the most part, at democrats' feet. It was the lack of regulation of Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac that allowed this, regulation that was opposed by democrats.

But I did learn something from this debate--that being Obama received the 2nd most "bribes" of any congressman from Fannie Mae. I doubt that kind of influence will allow for much change. I also noticed Obama didn't respond to the charge.

Posted by dailycomfort at 10/07/2008 @ 11:45pm
A Fool's Paradise By BOB HERBERT

With less than a month left until Election Day, there is still time for the presidential candidates to focus with great intensity on what should be the most important issue of this campaign. It's not just the economy, stupid -- it's jobs.

The stock markets were rocked again on Monday, and the need to stabilize the financial system is obvious. But the U.S. economy is never going to be really healthy until the country figures out how to provide work at decent pay for all, or nearly all, of the men and women who want to work.

We've been living for years in a fool's paradise atop a mountain of debt. The masters of the universe on Wall Street lost all sense of reason, no doubt. But most of us have been living above our means through the magic of easy credit, ever lower taxes, ever rising property values, stock market bubbles and the gift of denial, which we used to assure ourselves that the bills would never come due. We've even put our wars on a credit card.

The burden of debt for a typical middle-income family, earning about $45,000 a year, grew by a third in just the few years from 2001 to 2004, according to the Center for American Progress. The reason for this unsustainable added weight was the rising cost of such items as housing, higher education, health care and transportation at a time when wages grew only slightly or not at all.

In other words, work was not enough.

As for the debt burden of the federal government, don't ask. (But you might want to ask your grandchildren how they plan to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.)

With reality now caving in on us -- banks and brokerage houses falling like tenpins, a trillion dollars or so in bailout money being added to the nation's debt burden, families by the hundreds of

Posted by b_kool_66 at 10/08/2008 @ 12:03am
thousands being driven from their homes by foreclosures -- it might make sense to get back to basics. And in the United States, the basic economic component of a sustainable family life is a good job.

What we haven't paid close enough attention to for many years (a period in which we've been oddly obsessed with the financial lives of the rich and famous) is the fact that there haven't been enough good paying jobs to sustain what most working Americans view as an adequate standard of living. This is a fundamental flaw in the U.S. economic system.

With the latest financial meltdown, there has been widespread outrage over the excessive compensation of top corporate executives. Where has everybody been? The rich have been running the table for the better part of the past 30 or 40 years.

Example: The after-tax income of the top 1 percent of Americans rose 228 percent from the late 1970s through 2005. The story for working families over that same stretch was one of constant struggle to just stay even. As the Pew Charitable Trusts reported last year: "The earnings of men in their 30s have remained surprisingly flat over the past four decades."

Disaster was held at bay by the entrance of wives and mothers into the workplace, and by the embrace of colossal amounts of debt for everything from home mortgages, cars, clothing and vacations to food, college tuition and medical expenses.

Now middle-class and working families are up against the wall. With most other options exhausted, the only real way for the vast majority of Americans to continue financing a reasonable quality of life is through the proceeds from employment.

Unfortunately, we're retreating on that front. Nearly 160,000 jobs were lost in September. More than three-quarters of a million have vanished over the

Posted by b_kool_66 at 10/08/2008 @ 12:03am
past nine months.

The economy won't be saved by bailing out Wall Street and waiting for that day that never comes when the benefits trickle down to ordinary Americans. It won't be saved until we get serious about putting vast numbers of Americans back to work in jobs that are reasonably secure and pay a sustaining wage.

And that won't begin to happen until we roll up our sleeves and begin the immensely hard and expensive work of rebuilding a nation that unconscionably was allowed to slip into a precipitous state of decline. We'll end up spending trillions for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and another trillion, at least, to clean up after the madmen on Wall Street.

Now we need to find the money and the will to put Americans to work rebuilding the nation's deteriorating infrastructure, revitalizing its public school system, creating a new dawn of energy self-sufficiency and rethinking our approach to an economy that remains tilted wildly in favor of the rich.

That's what the presidential campaign should be about.

Posted by b_kool_66 at 10/08/2008 @ 12:03am
Amen.

Posted by b_kool_66 at 10/08/2008 @ 12:03am
Obama best steer clear of using the phrase:

"a right for every american"

This country is not ready for such in-your-face socialist talk. Poll that!

This RIGHT will hurt him more than the other WRIGHT.

Maybe "affordable health care should be available for every american" or something..

But a RIGHT? Hmmm...

NADER/GONZALES '08

Posted by bleedingheart at 10/08/2008 @ 12:10am
Posted by PFunk-

"Ironic that Obama of all people would advocate for slavery. Leaving aside for a moment that Obama just created a "right" out of thin air, right before our very eyes, he believes you have a "right to health care." Now lets analyze that statement in more detail. Health care is a service--a service provided by doctors, nurses, dentists, therapists, etc. So when Obama says people have a "right" to those services, he is also implying that the health care providers CANNOT refuse to provide them. After all, if it is your "right" how can it be refused to you? That brings us back to my original statement. Obama is stating that American citizens have a right to the services of others, i.e slavery. You would think he would know better."

This is exactly the type of twisted logic that gave the sophists a bad name. Saying people have a "right" to health care does not mean that health care providers are to be forced into a kind of indentured servitude. You know your absurd argument is mere sophistry-why bother?

Posted by wfunkhouser at 10/08/2008 @ 12:18am
Saying people have a "right" to health care does not mean that health care providers are to be forced into a kind of indentured servitude. You know your absurd argument is mere sophistry-why bother?

Posted by wfunkhouser at 10/08/2008 @ 12:18am

To prove a point. What do you think he means?

Posted by dailycomfort at 10/08/2008 @ 12:33am
MTOTD... Welcome, will you and your prevarications be staying long?

Posted by winyahn at 10/08/2008 @ 01:06am
Posted by wfunkhouser at 10/08/2008 @ 12:18am | ignore this person | warn this person

.

That was quite a long post there Funk.

Here, let's summarize your viewpoint...

...let the 'free market' dictate the price of health care. If the poor people can't afford it, too bad, let 'em die.

There, doesn't that sum up your position?

Posted by Lillian at 10/08/2008 @ 01:25am
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,...

...promote the general Welfare,

and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Posted by Lillian at 10/08/2008 @ 01:27am
Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence...

...and general Welfare of the United States;

but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Posted by Lillian at 10/08/2008 @ 01:33am
Is it in the interest of the American people to place health care in a position where it responds to market pressures first and foremost? Would it not be more indicative of a conscientious 'health care system' to push quality of life issues to the forefront of our national debates? Does the commoditization of health care actually work?

These questions do need to be answered on a national level... because living in denial should not be a prerequisite for 'getting through another day' in a dangerous world. Homeland security begins with domestic tranquility... life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness... but the high anxiety lifestyle that prevails in the United States at present is surely the greatest threat to our national security, and our health as individual Americans.

I think it is fair to say that most of us... if given the choice... would rather have financial stability, more time off from work, and a less 'cutthroat' work environment... than... a one in a million chance of being really really rich in a world where it's 'every man for himself'.

Changing the way Americans live... towards more sustainable and user friendly lifestyle choices... will stabilize our nation's health far more than any health care plan in most instances.

It's fair to say, though... we need to do both.

Posted by ttr at 10/08/2008 @ 01:34am
Posted by dailycomfort at 10/07/2008 @ 11:45pm

OK, let's hear it...the typical GOP response...wait for it...and here it is - but...but...but...but...CLINTON! Sorry, dc, but the GOP has run the government (and well into the ground) for the past 8 years. And GOP deregulation and warfare against the middle class has been a fact of life since Reagan took office. Republicans have simply never been able to manage an economy. The Great Depression was a Republican disaster, as was the Panic of 1873, as was Reagan;s recession. Arguably the most prosperous time in US history was the 1960s, during JFK's and pre-Nam LBJ's administration (they were Democrats, in case you gorgot). Ike's administration was pretty decent as well, but he couldn't win a GOP nomination for dog catcher with the gang of corporatists and theocrats running today's Republican Party. Neither, of course, could Lincoln or TR. And as far as the other Republican area of alleged expertise - defense/national security - let's see. An attack on American cities about which Bush did nothing - repeat NOTHING - to prevent, in spite of warnings (though Ashcroft certainly made sure his sorry ass was safe when he stopped flying commercial airlines). Bin Laden has yet to be caught. And then there's Bush's mass murderous occupation of Iraq. Your party has had free rein over these past 8 years. It is solely responsible for the outcome of its idiotic and utterly failed policies. It is solely responsible for what may ultimately be the end of this country as a great power. And it should pay dearly for that. Instead, you'll blame everyone else for your utter failures. Typical GOP.

Posted by jmusolino at 10/08/2008 @ 01:41am
McCain's inability to recognize healthcare as a basic human right is just one more symptom of the kind of constrained thinking produced by a society controlled by the market-place and not the other way around.

The other symptoms are staggering economic inequality, amorality, corruption and… oh yeah, a collapsing economy.

Historically, getting back to understanding our founding Rights, Principles and Ideals provides the antidote.

Time to see Dr. Democracy.

Posted by gregsdiary at 10/08/2008 @ 01:59am
Posted by jmusolino at 10/08/2008 @ 01:41am

The problem there is that deregeulation began under Carter and provided us with cheaper airfare, trucking, etc. We reaped the benefits, thus it continued. The current problem was brought on by do-gooder intentions to get people into their own homes, whether or not they could afford it. That was begun by Carter and Clinton. When REPUBLICANS brought up the need to investigate/rein in Fannie/Freddie, et al for their illegal practices, it was the democrats that blocked it.

Posted by dailycomfort at 10/08/2008 @ 06:52am
McCain's inability to recognize healthcare as a basic human right is just one more symptom of the kind of constrained thinking produced by a society controlled by the market-place and not the other way around.

Posted by gregsdiary at 10/08/2008 @ 01:59am

So tell me, do you believe that you have the "right" to the services of others?

Posted by dailycomfort at 10/08/2008 @ 06:53am
Obama really beat him up on the health care issue when he compared McCains plan to banks shopping around to the state that has the most deregulation. OUCH!

Posted by throwin at 10/08/2008 @ 07:10am
Posted by Lillian at 10/08/2008 @ 01:33am

Our Founding Fathers also believed that this clause should not be seen as an invitation to take from the "national treasury."

"...let the 'free market' dictate the price of health care. If the poor people can't afford it, too bad, let 'em die."

Were you aware that there is a segment of medicine that has seen prices drop over the last 15-20 years? It is in the area of elective procedures (plastic surgery, LASIK, vasectomies) that has seen prices decrease despite advances in technology. There is a radiology office in my town that offers a certain test for 1/4 the usual price IF you pay out of pocket. It is the interference of these third parties that contributes to the price of medicine.

And no one is saying "let 'em die." I believe the interference of government (and others) in medicine should be limited, and government should pay the going rate instead of continually decreasing reimbursement. It is this "under-reimbursement that leads to increasing prices for everyone. And yes, I realize that nonpayment has much to do with it as well, but with the market exerting its forces, prices will become more affordable for everyone (even government).

Posted by dailycomfort at 10/08/2008 @ 07:11am
Posted by dailycomfort at 10/08/2008 @ 06:53am

"So tell me, do you believe that you have the "right" to the services of others?"

Oh, trust me, if he's anything like the average Nation poster, he absolutely believes that he is owed free health care from the rest of us.

Posted by pontificus at 10/08/2008 @ 08:01am
If the poor people can't afford it, too bad, let 'em die.

There, doesn't that sum up your position?

Posted by Lillian at 10/08/2008 @ 01:25am

The other thing that gets my goat with statements such as these is that they come from "on high" as if you have some sort of moral high ground.

What you don't ever ask yourselves is what is so noble and honorable about letting people die because they are waiting in a line?

Posted by dailycomfort at 10/08/2008 @ 08:39am
There are so many things to say, but alas I must get to work. I would hate to be sued because I deprived someone of their Obama-given "right" to my services.

Posted by dailycomfort at 10/08/2008 @ 08:41am
"The other thing that gets my goat with statements such as these is that they come from "on high" as if you have some sort of moral high ground.

What you don't ever ask yourselves is what is so noble and honorable about letting people die because they are waiting in a line?"

Posted by dailycomfort at 10/08/2008 @ 08:39am

There IS a moral high ground here if that's what you want to call it. I believe it is a crime to deny healthcare to people if they're already sick; this seems a bit far from the "first, do no harm" principle; the harm done to these individuals is undeniable. At a time when a person's health is already deteriorating, they are asked to foot the bill, which they probably can't work to pay off because of their "pre-existing" condition. I also believe it is evil to deny healthcare to children regardless of their family circumstances.

The market based solution is not working and will not work. The only way for an insurance company to remain profitable is to reduce the services they will cover for the same premiums. We pay the same and get reduced care.

A healthy society means a healthy work force means more production means more economic growth means more tax revenue.

I believe healthcare is a right, but whether you call it a right or a privilege, the current system is pay or stay sick, pay or die and that is a fact.

If I have to wait an extra week or an extra month to get services that someone else more desperately needs, so be it. This is a result of my morality and my ethics. So, yes, there is a high ground here.

Stop shilling for the health insurance industry - it has become a bloated monster.

Posted by HAL9000 at 10/08/2008 @ 09:25am
Posted by dailycomfort at 10/08/2008 @ 06:52am

You know I find it amazing that the GOP when it controlled BOTH Houses of Congress were ...completely helpless to "evil Democratic machinations" on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac....

but found plenty of time to work on ....Terri Schiavo?!!??!?

Posted by Maskdelta at 10/08/2008 @ 09:44am
Please excuse me I,m new to this. But in the intrest of all American I do bleive that health care should be a right. I look at other nations around the world and in some ways do belive they running ahead of America. No i not anti-america or anythig like that, but I'm looking at the big picture here. Health care for istantance, other countries have universal health care plans and there citizens are being more productive and have longer a life-span then Americans. I know health care providers and lobbist will tell you that such systems don't work or people have long wait periods for most surgeries. I don't think so, please do the research for yourself you have the tools. and its not like the system we have is currently working. I am confident that if the European system is broken America can adopt and work out the kinks. But think about this America the greatest country on earth I think everyone will agree. But as great as we are can't provide health care for each and every American Citizen.

Posted by dingram75 at 10/08/2008 @ 10:08am
Posted by HAL9000 at 10/08/2008 @ 09:25am

That's a wonderful response, but what exactly is so noble about letting people die because they are waiting in a line?

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

"I believe healthcare is a right"

The follow-up question is "do you believe that you have the right to the services of others?" I can assure you that there is nothing noble about that.

Posted by dailycomfort at 10/08/2008 @ 10:08am
Most "mature" industrialized nations recognize healthcare for its citizens as part of the social contract between citizens and government. Government for the people and by the people is not a concept that the robber barrons who control our government comprehend. To them....we are just expendable worker bees feeding the elite queen bee. Social Darwinism controlled not by genetics,but by money. What the robber barrons fail to acknowledge is that they are killing that which sustains them. I guess when you have the luxury of running away to Paraguay to live the rest of your days in a secured compound and where your every need is attended to by cheap indigenous labor (servants), financial Social Darvwinism looks pretty good.

Posted by OneVote at 10/08/2008 @ 10:33am
Posted by HAL9000 at 10/08/2008 @ 09:25am

"Stop shilling for the health insurance industry - it has become a bloated monster."

This is a false paradigm that even Obama doesn't support. You can rest assured that whatever orgnaizaiton provides health care to the citizens of this country, it will be a 'bloated monster'. The question is, which type of bloated monster do you prefer, the governmental kind, or the private kind. Since I have to deal with the Post Office and the IRS, I can tell you I'd rather not have these types of organizational models in charge of my health care. You may feel differently, but don't delude yourself that you have a better answer, because you don't.

Posted by pontificus at 10/08/2008 @ 10:37am
Posted by OneVote at 10/08/2008 @ 10:33am

The problem is, most of the advances in health care are generated by the for-profit system in the US. Most of the new drugs and procedures come from this country. Thus there is a de-fact subsidy to countries with socialized medicine by the US private haealth care industry, in addition to the fact that most of these countries are able to leech off the US military to provide security and thus pay more for social services that they otherwise could not afford.

Second, the quality of services to most people in the socialized medicine countries is, at best, no better than that provided here, and in many cases, much worse. In many cases, the only way many people in Canada, for example, can receive timely life-saving treatment is to come to the US (google: Belinda Stronach). In the US, most poor people have access to effectively free health care through emergency rooms and other means anyway, so your proposition that poor people die for lack of health care is mostly a canard.

Posted by pontificus at 10/08/2008 @ 10:44am
"That's a wonderful response, but what exactly is so noble about letting people die because they are waiting in a line?"

Posted by dailycomfort at 10/08/2008 @ 10:08am

Not sure if you read my whole response, so I'll just quote myself.

"If I have to wait an extra week or an extra month to get services that someone else more desperately needs, so be it. This is a result of my morality and my ethics. So, yes, there is a high ground here."

This implies my willingless to move to the back of the line, if necessary, to let the dying or the more needy move to the front of the line. There is nothing noble about letting people die waiting in line. You've got no argument from me about that.

As far as your follow-up, do I believe I have the right to the services of others? Well, this is a fairly vague question and I guess my answer would depend on the services offered. In general I would say no, however, what we're talking about here is the right to affordable healthcare. The question is, do the people who provide that service have the compassion to offer it in a fair way?

Posted by HAL9000 at 10/08/2008 @ 10:50am
Posted by pontificus at 10/08/2008 @ 10:44am | ignore this person | warn this person

Why do suppose the US trails so many countries in the health of its citizens?

I think you have been watching the propaganda of vested interests too much. Try watching Moore's "Sicko."

The elite will always have the best medical care available, no matter whether we have socialized healthcare or not. Perhaps we could divert some military research spending to healthcare research if the outrageous profit incentive is removed from healthcare system? Corporations have been feeding off taxpayer funded research and development in this country for decades.

Posted by OneVote at 10/08/2008 @ 10:58am
"In the US, most poor people have access to effectively free health care through emergency rooms and other means anyway, so your proposition that poor people die for lack of health care is mostly a canard."

Posted by pontificus at 10/08/2008 @ 10:44am

An excerpt from USAToday. This is about more than just the poor.

"18,000 deaths blamed on lack of insurance (per year and rising).

By Steve Sternberg, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON -- More than 18,000 adults in the USA die each year because they are uninsured and can't get proper health care, researchers report in a landmark study released Tuesday.

The 193-page report, "Care Without Coverage: Too Little, Too Late," examines the plight of 30 million -- one in seven -- working-age Americans whose employers don't provide insurance and who don't qualify for government medical care.

About 10 million children lack insurance; elderly Americans are covered by Medicare.

It is the second in a planned series of six reports by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) examining the impact of the nation's fragmented health system. The IOM is a non-profit organization of experts that advises Congress on health issues.

Overall, the researchers say, 18,314 people die in the USA each year because they lack preventive services, a timely diagnosis or appropriate care.

The estimated death toll includes about 1,400 people with high blood pressure, 400 to 600 with breast cancer and 1,500 diagnosed with HIV."

Posted by HAL9000 at 10/08/2008 @ 11:08am
Posted by HAL9000 at 10/08/2008 @ 11:08am

The problem with these types of articles is they always compare our current system against some hypothetically perfect system, with the implicit presumption that if we adopted socialized medicine, these people would not die.

Socialized medicine, as I have said, is far from perfect. Many people in Great Britain, for example, die while waiting in line for life-saving surgeries or cancer treatments. The author's implicit presumption, that 18,000 people die due to our for-profit system, and that these people would not die in a 'perfect' system presumably represented by a 'socialized medicine', is highly misleading, and you fell right into it.

Posted by pontificus at 10/08/2008 @ 11:21am
18,000 a year and that was a report from 2002.

18,000 people. That's six 9/11's a year. We went into a war that costs 10bn a month because of one 9/11. Where are your priorities? Where are your party's priorities?

"You may feel differently, but don't delude yourself that you have a better answer, because you don't."

Posted by pontificus at 10/08/2008 @ 10:44am

That's a bold statment given that I've never talked to you about this before.

Another question, why would we model healthcare on the models of the postal system or the IRS? We're not talking about delivering letters and counting beans.

Posted by HAL9000 at 10/08/2008 @ 11:23am
Posted by HAL9000 at 10/08/2008 @ 11:23am

"Another question, why would we model healthcare on the models of the postal system or the IRS? We're not talking about delivering letters and counting beans."

A better question would be, why do you think it would be better? Do you really think that our experience with government-run agencies reasonably leads us to believe that we can set up an ideal government-run health care system from scratch? I don't. I think we'd be lucky to get something on the order of the efficiency of these two agencies, and most likely, far less. Even Obama doesn't agree with you on this one.

"That's a bold statment given that I've never talked to you about this before. "

Well, based on your statements, I presume you are talking about government run health care based on the model of Great Britain or Canada.

Posted by pontificus at 10/08/2008 @ 11:28am
"The problem with these types of articles is they always compare our current system against some hypothetically perfect system, with the implicit presumption that if we adopted socialized medicine, these people would not die."

Posted by pontificus at 10/08/2008 @ 11:21am

There isn't a comparison to any system. This "article" (actually a comprehensive scientific study) also makes no mention of socialized medicine, implicit or otherwise. It merely points out the need that we all have for preventative medical care, whether we can afford it or not, and the cost in human lives if we continue to ignore this fundamental problem.

Posted by HAL9000 at 10/08/2008 @ 11:29am
Many people in Great Britain, for example, die while waiting in line for life-saving surgeries or cancer treatments.

Posted by pontificus at 10/08/2008 @ 11:21am | ignore this person | warn this person

Got a source for this statement?

How many people filed for bankruptcy in Great Britain due to unanticipated healthcare bills?

Should citizens have to live in this fear to protect privitatization and monopoly of the healthcare provision in the USA?

Posted by OneVote at 10/08/2008 @ 11:30am
"I presume you are talking about government run health care based on the model of Great Britain or Canada."

Posted by pontificus at 10/08/2008 @ 11:28am

Your presumption is incorrect. The question posed to me was whether or not I think healthcare is a right. I haven't mentioned government once.

Posted by HAL9000 at 10/08/2008 @ 11:33am
"in addition to the fact that most of these countries are able to leech off the US military to provide security and thus pay more for social services that they otherwise could not afford"

Posted by pontificus at 10/08/2008 @ 10:44am | ignore this person | warn this person

Any source to support your statement that socialized healthcare is not completely paid for by taxes and is subsidized by deficit spending like we do for the military in this country?

Posted by OneVote at 10/08/2008 @ 12:00pm
Posted by HAL9000 at 10/08/2008 @ 11:08am

Hey, HAL....since you posted an actual news article, you might try this line of argument with PONTI--

"Again, you're arguing with the news report, not me. Try to discern the difference."----Posted by PONTIFICUS 11/02/2007 @ 10:16am

Posted by Maskdelta at 10/08/2008 @ 12:16pm
"Many people in Great Britain, for example, die while waiting in line for life-saving surgeries or cancer treatments."

the primary reason why mccain still has a 1% chance of winnning is the existence of the person, and the 10,000 others like him, who made the above claim.

Posted by darladoon at 10/08/2008 @ 12:18pm
With reality now caving in on us -- banks and brokerage houses falling like tenpins, a trillion dollars or so in bailout money being added to the nation's debt burden, families by the hundreds of

Posted by b_kool_66 at 10/08/2008 @ 12:03am | ignore this person | warn this person

Check out this statement from AIG - marke to market accounting blamed for AIG failure. Meaning....gosh, you mean we really have to accurately publish balance sheets based on truth......such a notion.

The house of cards is falling. Private health insurance has scandals and fraud aplenty.

Exerpt:

'In prepared testimony, former AIG chief executive Martin Sullivan said many of the firm's problems stemmed from "mark to market" accounting rules mandating that its positions guaranteeing troubled mortgage securities be carried as tens of billions of dollars in losses on its balance sheet. This in turn, said former AIG chief executive Robert Willumstad, forced the firm to raise billions of dollars in capital. The federal rescue came after AIG suffered disastrous liquidity problems after its credit rating was lowered, forcing the company to come up with even more capital.'

Source: Andrew Taylor - Associated Press 10/07/08 - Clevland.com

Posted by OneVote at 10/08/2008 @ 12:50pm
People need to put the deeds of Fannie and Freddie in context. Securitization of mortgages by Fannie and Freddie totalled about $750 billion between 2002 and 2006. Private securitization, like the Bear Stearns of the world, was double that. These securitizations were the more toxic exploding ARMs, interest only products that are really causing this mess.

I'm not letting Fannie and Freddie off the hook, but I think their blame is a little overstated, while we seem to be ignoring the deeds of the few greedy SOBs on Wall Street that really made this mess.

Also, correct me if I am wrong, but much of Bush's 'reform' of Fannie and Freddie woudl have given the Treasury, and by extenstion, the executive branch, much more authority. Not sure if I'd call that 'reform'.

Posted by DGKusel at 10/08/2008 @ 1:01pm
That's what the presidential campaign should be about.

Posted by b_kool_66 at 10/08/2008 @ 12:03am

thank, bcool.

i owe you......

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/08/2008 @ 1:34pm
The problem is, most of the advances in health care are generated by the for-profit system in the US. Most of the new drugs and procedures come from this country.

Posted by pontificus at 10/08/2008 @ 10:44am

prove it.

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/08/2008 @ 1:36pm
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/08/2008

Mask, I have to say on behalf of all of the commentators here, thank-you for keeping old posts. Nice to give these guys back their own bullshit.

Posted by HAL9000 at 10/08/2008 @ 1:48pm
"Why do suppose the US trails so many countries in the health of its citizens?"

Once again, this is a factually inaccurate statement perpetrated by the left. It's based on statistics, which inherently don't tell the whole story. Read "The Business of Health" and you'll find that when statistics are corrected for certain variables, our health care is quite comparable.

"I think you have been watching the propaganda of vested interests too much. Try watching Moore's "Sicko.""

Yeah, no propaganda there.

Posted by dailycomfort at 10/08/2008 @ 1:52pm
Any source to support your statement that socialized healthcare is not completely paid for by taxes and is subsidized by deficit spending like we do for the military in this country?

Posted by OneVote at 10/08/2008 @ 12:00pm

Do some research into Britain's NHS. It's rife with underfunding and long waits.

Posted by dailycomfort at 10/08/2008 @ 1:53pm
The time honored differences between Dems and Repubs, between libs and cons, definitely came out during the Health Care debate: To the former a right, the latter a privilege. The Repubs say you should have a choice, the Libs want to do what they think is best for all of us, whether we want it or need it or not. Conservatism-Individualism Libs-Collectivism.

I think everyone knows where I would stand, and it is only because I want to see the beginning of rule by the next generation, because my own doesn't know what the hell its doing, that I'll vote for Obama and compromise some of my principles. For now, its more important to have new ideas, new blood, to stop the malaise.

Too bad Palin's not Obama's running mate. Now THERE would be a hell of a ticket!

Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 10/08/2008 @ 1:55pm
Do some research into Britain's NHS. It's rife with underfunding and long waits.

Posted by dailycomfort at 10/08/2008 @ 1:53pm | ignore this person | warn this person

Your the proponent.....how about you educating us?

Posted by OneVote at 10/08/2008 @ 1:58pm
Posted by HAL9000 at 10/08/2008 @ 1:48pm

Well, PONTI, to HIS CREDIT, hasn't done like some of our right-wing posters and changed his nick...

honestly, do you think "dailycomfort" is a newbie?!?!??! Or a gutless Righty who does't want to be linked to his previous predictions? (and I have a good idea who....he also may not want to pay off a bet!)

Posted by Maskdelta at 10/08/2008 @ 1:59pm
I'm not letting Fannie and Freddie off the hook, but I think their blame is a little overstated, while we seem to be ignoring the deeds of the few greedy SOBs on Wall Street that really made this mess.

Posted by DGKusel at 10/08/2008 @ 1:01pm | ignore this person | warn this person

Check out 60 Minutes last Sunday. Credit default swaps (intangibles made of thin air) "valued" at $60 trillion. This amount far surpasses mortgages in default. 96% of the mortgages in USA are being paid. Who is fooling who and why should we bail out marketers of credit default swaps?

Posted by OneVote at 10/08/2008 @ 2:02pm
"Do some research into Britain's NHS. It's rife with underfunding and long waits."

Posted by dailycomfort at 10/08/2008 @ 1:53pm

The burden of proof is on you, my friend.

Posted by HAL9000 at 10/08/2008 @ 2:04pm
"Many people in Great Britain, for example, die while waiting in line for life-saving surgeries or cancer treatments."

the primary reason why mccain still has a 1% chance of winnning is the existence of the person, and the 10,000 others like him, who made the above claim.

Posted by darladoon at 10/08/2008 @ 12:18pm

Actually, there was a study done in Germany of patients requiring stent placement. After being told that the wait would be less than a week, patients had to wait ON AVERAGE 30 days. And,yes, some patients died while waiting for the procedure. I referenced this study a year or so ago but have since deleted it from my "favorites." While I don't remember the exact numbers, the study did say that the number of deaths was "statistically significant."

Posted by dailycomfort at 10/08/2008 @ 2:06pm
The burden of proof is on you, my friend.

Posted by HAL9000 at 10/08/2008 @ 2:04pm

I've already done it, again a year or so ago, with numerous links and references which I listed on this site--all of which fell on deaf ears here, of course. We can't have and research and statistics bursting anyone's bubble, no.

Posted by dailycomfort at 10/08/2008 @ 2:09pm
"I've already done it, again a year or so ago, with numerous links and references which I listed on this site--all of which fell on deaf ears here, of course. We can't have and research and statistics bursting anyone's bubble, no."

Posted by dailycomfort at 10/08/2008 @ 2:09pm

Enlighten me. I just joined these commentaries.

Posted by HAL9000 at 10/08/2008 @ 2:20pm
Mask

I've already stated that I had to change my moniker because apparently The Nation doesn't like it when you are able to make a complete mockery of their writers as I did with Katha and her inanities on her "McCain Hates Women" thread (something like that). Was I a bit crass? Yes, but it wasn't anywhere near the vulgarity that I regularly see on this website. I believe I said something like "Katha couldn't find truth with a speculum and a spotlight." That pretty much closed the book on Plain Bruce. Hence, I am now Daily Comfort.

:)

Posted by dailycomfort at 10/08/2008 @ 2:34pm
Who says it has to be an "either/or" solution when it comes to health care?

Why not form a commission, like we did after 9/11, and charge it with studying the health cars systems of all the industrialized countries throughout the world. Let's have them really dig in--find out what works and what doesn't work with each system (I'm sure they all have flaws) and then report back to the country with their recommendations.

If it means stealing the best ideas from 10 different countries then I say "go for it!" Hell, I'm not proud.

Posted by vertigoskippy at 10/08/2008 @ 2:40pm
So tell me, do you believe that you have the "right" to the services of others? Posted by dailycomfort at 10/08/2008 @ 06:53am

I wish I could answer your question--but the premise doesn't make sense.

It looks like you are conflating Rights with Responsibilities.

Rights:

People have a Right to healthcare, just as they have a right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Further, you can not lose or gain the Right to be treated as a human being--the Right is simply yours by virtue of being human.

Generally this idea is not disputed. (although if you're feeling froggy then by all means, leap.)

How a Right is protected is another matter.

Responsibilities:

Here the question becomes, given these Rights, who is responsible for them?

"Responsibilities are often contested. If the indigent have a right to food so they don't starve to death, who has the responsibility to feed them? Is it the state, through supplying food stamps paid for by taxes? Progressives see feeding the poor as a responsibility required of the citizenry. Some conservatives argue that using tax money forces the responsibility on the public and that the responsibility should be freely undertaken, say by private charities and churches. They see them as a matter of freedom--freedom from the forced imposition of a responsibility for someone else." --George Lakoff

So if you revised your question, I would say yes, there is a responsibility to provide healthcare to all because it is a right.

Get it?

Posted by gregsdiary at 10/08/2008 @ 2:58pm
That pretty much closed the book on Plain Bruce. Hence, I am now Daily Comfort.

:(----Posted by dailycomfort at 10/08/2008 @ 2:34pm

So you got yourself banned, PLAIN BRUCE, and needed to get back here again with a completely different nick to "throw off the hounds"?

Posted by Maskdelta at 10/08/2008 @ 3:00pm
"A Speculum and a spotlight?

Heh Heh (Thats pretty good, actually)

Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 10/08/2008 @ 3:41pm
"I think you have been watching the propaganda of vested interests too much. Try watching Moore's "Sicko.""

Yeah, no propaganda there.

Posted by dailycomfort at 10/08/2008 @ 1:52pm | ignore this person | warn this person

Specifically, what issue or issues do you think are not portrayed accurately in Moore's film?

I am stil waiting for all your support. I've already done it doesn't cut the mustard.

I await support for your "naked" assertions.........

Posted by OneVote at 10/08/2008 @ 3:53pm
So you got yourself banned, PLAIN BRUCE, and needed to get back here again with a completely different nick to "throw off the hounds"?

Posted by Maskdelta at 10/08/2008 @ 3:00pm | ignore this person | warn this person

An army of One! hahahahahhaha

Pretty pathetic. Kind of like 90% of Americans support off shore drilling....ah...where and when was that poll done.......

Posted by OneVote at 10/08/2008 @ 3:57pm
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/08/2008 @ 3:00pm

I'm not sure what you mean by "throw off the hounds." If you are implying that I am trying to hide my true persona, you couldn't be more wrong. Feel free to scroll through Katha's post. You'll find my initial Daily Comfort post in which I explain the reason for the change. In fact, I'm somewhat surprised and not just a little insulted that you don't already have it cut 'n pasted somewhere.

Posted by dailycomfort at 10/08/2008 @ 4:55pm
Posted by dailycomfort at 10/08/2008 @ 4:55pm | ignore this person | warn this person

Alas....no support from our most ardent advocates on No Right to HealthCare.

Parting shot though....if private healthcare is sooooo great, why do you suppose that our veterans adamantly oppose any privatization of VA? Hmmmmm, maybe our veterans know what it is like our there is the private sector........

Posted by OneVote at 10/08/2008 @ 5:10pm
Posted by gregsdiary at 10/08/2008 @ 2:58pm

Actually, I don't think you get it. As I stated before, there can be no right to health care. Health care is a service, one that is provided by others. Claiming a "right" to the services of others is tantamount to slavery. Any "right" that imposes on the rights of others is not and CANNOT be a right. You're getting closer with calling providing health care a responsibility, which ironically is what McCain stated in last night's debate, but it is important that you not get the two confused. As a doctor, I have an obligation to treat those in need, but that IN NO WAY implies that you have a right to my services.

Posted by dailycomfort at 10/08/2008 @ 5:16pm
....if private healthcare is sooooo great, why do you suppose that our veterans adamantly oppose any privatization of VA? Hmmmmm, maybe our veterans know what it is like our there is the private sector........

Posted by OneVote at 10/08/2008 @ 5:10pm

That dog doesn't hunt here, I'm afraid. I have several veterans in my practice who go to the VA to get their free medicines, but come to me for their medical problems.

Posted by dailycomfort at 10/08/2008 @ 5:21pm
Ladies and gentlemen, (I use those terms loosely), who have suggested that the postal service is not up to par: May I remind you that the US Postal Service is no longer run by the US Government? It was privatized many years ago. And that's when service declined and prices increased by more than 300%! Please do not use the postal service of an example of government-run institutions, as it has become a for-profit member of the private sector. Check your facts, folks!

Posted by NV_Sparkle at 10/08/2008 @ 5:57pm
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1019/p04s01-woeu.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/world/europe/21britain.html ?_r=2&pagewanted =1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92419273

onevote and HAL- Here are some facts to get you started. See the last paragraph of the NPR article- the French health care system ran an 8 billion dollar deficit last year.

FZ- See the NYT article. The two cancer drugs mentioned are both made by American companies.

Posted by twillie at 10/08/2008 @ 7:22pm
Check your facts, folks! Posted by NV_Sparkle at 10/08/2008 @ 5:57pm

Huh. So, what private, non-governmental organization runs it?

Posted by twillie at 10/08/2008 @ 7:26pm
$2500 and the same healthcare coverage as the Senate and Congress save is going to fix the problem? People lets be serious.

Obama's plan sounds like it can make things far worse, healthcare is a responsibilty we already share. There are other ways of making it work, mandating it will not solve the problem effeciently. A high cost program like healthcare would be worse than social security and our education system.

There has to be other ways, but how can anyone praise this idea?

Posted by widvasqu at 10/09/2008 @ 01:38am
onevote and HAL-- Done reading those articles yet?

Posted by twillie at 10/09/2008 @ 11:05am
Okay, lets look at how health care costs are calculated. When my wife was head of a pediatric PT department, I helped her with a business plan to hire a new therapist. The way that this plan outlined the setting of the fee was very telling. For example; say we will pay the new therapist $35 an hour plus 20% benefits, that would be $47 total. Add another 20% for overhead costs, then you would expect the fee to be $57. However, we had to actually calculate the percentage of each type of patient (medicare, hmo, private insurance) and then use standard rates of reimbursement to calculate the actual return according to each payor. In order to bring in an average of $57 per treatment, the fee was $125 per treatment! What this shows is that the real issue with costs are the mutiple payors involved and that each payor only contributes a percentage toward the actual cost. The only way around this problem is a single-payor system. Mc Cain's plan would make this worse by having even more payors with more different reimbursements.

Posted by drham at 10/09/2008 @ 12:30pm
Posted by vertigoskippy at 10/08/2008 @ 2:40pm

Thank you....I've put that basic argument out there on these blogs for over a year (remember Plain Bruce, LL, etc) and have found no reasonable argument against it. Are we not smart enough to learn what is the best? Why does EVERY other industrialized nation on the planet have some sort of socialized healthcare? Because it works! Not that any are perfect, but at least most of their citizens have SOME healthcare. We have people dying from toothaches and other folks who fall down and die in emergency rooms. A 1/6th of our entire population is without helathcare at all and preventative medicine in the USA ... a joke (albeit unfunny).

Insurance is a scam that serves no purpose other than act as a social parasite to pay people who are betting on who's going to die first and figure out how to NOT give health care to as many people as possible. And you idiots out there think this is the best way to deliver services?

Posted by leftofcenter at 10/11/2008 @ 10:55pm