Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditSenate Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus, the insurance industry-friendly Democrat who is managing show hearings on healthcare reform, has come up with a novel way to express his commitment to care for the almost 50 million Americans who have no healthcare and roughly equal number who have inadequate care.
The senior senator from Montana is ordering the arrest of doctors and nurses.
Medical practitioners who have shown up at Baucus-chaired "roundtable discussions" to demand consideration of a real fix -- the single-payer, genuinely-public reform that assures all Americans will have health care while at the same time holding down costs -- are being taken into custody and removed from the hearing rooms.
At the first Finance Committee session last week, Dr. Margaret Flowers and seven others were taken into custody when they urged Baucus to include witnesses who support single-payer.
Dr. Flowers discussed her arrest on Ed Schultz's MSNBC show, explaining that physicians, nurses and reform groups representing more than 20 million Americans had repeatedly asked to be heard by Baucus and his colleagues.
But the answer from Baucus, who has been charged by the Obama administration with shaping a health-care plan, has been to call in the cops.
"They just don't want to hear from single-payer," explained Dr. Flowers, a pediatrician from Maryland. "We've been trying for months now, meeting with members of Congress, to be included in the hearings at the events that they are holding and they keep excluding us."
After reviewing the details of the Baucus overreaction, Schultz asked: "President Obama: Do you support excluding people from the discussion?"
Obama has not responded.
But Baucus has.
On Tuesday, at the second Finance Committee session, dozens of California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee members and their allies showed up to protest the heavy-handed tactics. At the opening of the hearing, roughly thirty of them rose and turned their backs to Baucus. On their backs were signs reading: "Pass Single-Payer" and "Nurses Say: Patients First." Other signs, reading "Stop AHIP," protested the collaboration by the Obama administration and Baucus with the country's most powerful industry lobby, the America's Health Insurance Plans group.
While the health-insurance lobby has been welcomed to the roundtable discussions organized by Baucus, the nurses and their allies were told to leave. When five objected to their exclusion from the hearing, and to the the exclusion of single-payer from the debate about how to fix a broken private healthcare system, they were arrested. Among those taken into custody were Dr. Judy Dasovich, Dr. Steven Fenichel and California nurses DeAnn McEwen and Sue Cannon.
Their crime? As healthcare professionals, they dared to dissent from the Baucus-led attempt to impose an insurance company approved plan under the guise of "reform."
Dr. Dasovich, a physician from Springfield, Missouri, dared to say, "We request that single-payer advocates be allowed at the table. Healthcare should be for patients, not for profits." Nurse Cannon said, "People at the table have failed Americans for 30 years. We want single-payer at the table. We want guaranteed health care so we can give the care we need, when we need to give it."
When the doctors, nurses and their allies left the Capitol, activist David Swanson reported, members of the CNA/NNOC, Progressive Democrats of American, Code Pink and allied single-payer advocates chanted: "Lock Up Baucus!" and hoisted a sign reading: "Most Physicians Want a Single-Payer National Health System."
At the White House, reporter Helen Thomas asked Obama administration spokesman Robert Gibbs: "Did anyone represent single-payer at this meeting today?"
"Well, I don't think it was a full meeting of those that might be at the table," the scrambling spokesman said. "I believe that people of varying opinions have been here for different meetings, have been part of the larger healthcare reform summit that was done earlier this year, and I don't doubt that in the coming days differing viewpoints about how to achieve cost savings in increased coverage will be part of that discussion."
If that sounded like a dodge, it was.
But single-payer advocates weren't fooled.
They're raising the banner of real reform higher, with events such as Tuesday's Florence Nightingale Day Protest organized by the California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee and Physicians for a National Health Program. Explained CNA/NNOC: "May 12 is Florence Nightingale's Birthday – an opportunity to honor her advocacy of healthcare by protesting Congressional hearings that have been stacked in favor of the big insurance companies while silencing the voices of nurses and doctors who favor guaranteed healthcare, as in a single-payer, expanded Medicare-for-all system with a single standard of quality care."
Those physicians and nurses groups, along with Progressive Democrats of America and other members of the Leadership Conferences for Guaranteed Health Care rallied Wednesday with feature key congressional advocates for single-payer healthcare, including Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders and Michigan Congressman John Conyers, as well as CNA/NNOC executive director Rose Ann DeMoro, Dr. Flowers and actor Mike Farrell.
The rally was held at Washington's Upper Senate Park, a location outside the Capitol where doctors and nurses are able to talk about curing what ails American healthcare without facing arrest.
Share this article
John Nichols
Breaking news and analysis on political, social, economic and cultural activism that mainstream media commonly ignore.
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
keep this up, NICHOLS...
this is certainly an area progressives need to push the obama administration on.
kudos to those getting arrested for DARING TO WANT TO BE HEARD AND CONSIDERED BY THEIR ELECTED "LEADERS"!
they are not an insignificant minority.
i'm starting to hope an effective challenge is mounted to obama in the 12 primary. not to undermine or even defeat him, but to light a fire under his ass and keep him honest.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/13/2009 @ 3:20pm
"has come up with a novel way to express his commitment *tp* care for the "
This is like the third misspelling/typo I've seen on here in the 5 days or so I've been visiting the site. I think they need better web editors.
Posted by zmann at 05/13/2009 @ 3:33pm
And kudos to Helen Thomas for putting Obama's mouthpiece on the spot.
Posted by cka2nd at 05/13/2009 @ 3:36pm
"When five objected to their exclusion from the hearing, and to the the exclusion of single-payer from the debate about how to fix a broken private health-care system, they were arrested."
So all they did was "object"....verbally...and they were arrested.
That's the whole story behind it?
Posted by Mask at 05/13/2009 @ 3:40pm
the oft parroted mantra that this is a "conservative country" may have held true up until around...now...
things are changing. actually things HAVE CHANGED ALREADY.
as usual the talking head/conventional wisdom crowd punditocracy of the msm is one step behind current reality, fighting the last war.
beyond the MASSIVE discrediting of anarcho-libertarian american conservatism and right wing medievalist theocracy by the very observable results of their policies...
every day people die and others are born...and reach voting age. if america was, until recently, a "conservative nation" (and it was), conservatives BETTER be at least replacing dead conservatives with live conservatives...
and they are not!
so...if obama is still afraid of the big bad wolf of the conservative juggernaut, and is EXCLUDING "LIBERAL" VOICES out of fear of republican, conservative noise machine attack...
maybe he should relax and take another look at the situation.
otherwise its time some democrats look to run a viable challenger to obama in the 12 primary.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/13/2009 @ 3:53pm
Kudos to the Capital Police for arresting these marxists who refuse to recognize the rule of law and the constitution.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/13/2009 @ 4:31pm
"Kudos to the Capital Police for arresting these marxists who refuse to recognize the rule of law and the constitution"
statements like these perfectly demonstrate why the GOP is in total disarray.
keep on saying ridiculously stupid things, anti, it will only help the "marxists."
Posted by darladoon at 05/13/2009 @ 4:45pm
marxist = middle class american who goes bankrupt because they got cancer.
Posted by darladoon at 05/13/2009 @ 4:45pm
Posted by antisocialist at 05/13/2009 @ 4:31pm | ignore this person | warn this person
lol...
unless MASK is onto something (That's the whole story behind it?) what's so awful about a few protesters who represent a sizable chunk of the populace...wanting to be heard?
i don't even think obama realizes how "conservative" america is NO MORE...
for years the majority of americans consistently polled pretty "liberal" on issues while self identifying as conservative. now that "conservative" has been vilified by results as thoroughly as "liberal" was vilified by the right wing noise machine, the right is in trouble.
how you feel about those folks that protested the hindu invocation in the house a while back? or the christians who protested the removal of the ten commandments from a courtroom a while back?
Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/13/2009 @ 4:54pm
East Germany - political influence - Marxism East Germany - automobile - Trabant
USA - political influence - Obamaism USA - automobile - ??
What do you want to drive Darla?
Posted by sntauri at 05/13/2009 @ 5:04pm
Posted by sntauri at 05/13/2009 @ 5:04pm | ignore this person | warn this person
huh?
Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/13/2009 @ 5:12pm
how you feel about those folks that protested the hindu invocation in the house a while back? or the christians who protested the removal of the ten commandments from a courtroom a while back?
Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/13/2009 @ 4:54pm
I believe in protest, but when you protest, you need to accept that if you break the law while protesting, accept that price and don't then complain about being arrested.
So Nichols tries to shame a Senator for upholding the rule of law. Which is ironic since Nichols is always ranting about what he believes is conservative violations of the rule of law.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/13/2009 @ 5:14pm
Posted by antisocialist at 05/13/2009 @ 5:14pm | ignore this person | warn this person
well, it bothers me that these groups appear to be getting left out of the discussion (jeez, at least PRETEND to listen)...
although i do wonder if some details are being left out about the protesters. guess i should google some...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/13/2009 @ 5:23pm
Time for some housecleaning. Pun intended.
Posted by Milhaus at 05/13/2009 @ 5:46pm
well, it bothers me that these groups appear to be getting left out of the discussion (jeez, at least PRETEND to listen)...
although i do wonder if some details are being left out about the protesters. guess i should google some...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/13/2009 @ 5:23pm
I find it hard to believe they have no contact mechanism with Obama (or his people), Reid, or Pelosi.
I agree with you that it doesn't smell right.
My view is that they wanted the circus atmosphere and attention rather than being at the table.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/13/2009 @ 5:55pm
Posted by Milhaus at 05/13/2009 @ 5:46pm | ignore this person | warn this person
sentiment appreciated but...
1. baucus is in the senate, not the house and...
2. for now dems like baucus may be as progressive as it gets in montana. as it sinks in to the punditocracy and the political class that the country is becoming more progressive every day, obstructionist dems will either bend with the prevailing breeze or break and be replaced.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/13/2009 @ 5:58pm
commitment to care for the almost 50 million Americans
That's a lie. At least 20% of them are illegal aliens, not American citizens.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/13/2009 @ 6:08pm
Thank God that someone is proposing an alternative to government run Obomunism. The Obama Nation is quickly becoming an abomination. It's a grotesque perversion of the philosophy upon which this country's founders built our great nation. What makes him so dangerous is that he is a youthful prodigy - an uncanny master, almost a Pied Piper of sorts, of demagogic rhetoric and scapegoating (think Wall Street big shots, big banks, drug companies, student loan companies etc...) His prowess in this regard reminds me of another infamous demagogue who got the great unwashed masses to follow him like a flock of mesmerized sheep to tragic consequences. Anybody know who I'm talking about? Anybody? If he was a baseball player jacked up on steroids they would probably nick name him A-Hit. But since he was a tyrannical fascist dictator jacked up on amphetamine let's just call him Adolph Hitler. For the Obama supporters who don't understand a word of what they just read: Don't ask questions. Just follow the person in front of you into the shower and don't worry about a thing. Barack says it's OK so it must be so.
Posted by tokenb at 05/13/2009 @ 6:19pm
I never thought a hick senator from a state with about 5000 people would be the main obstruction to healthcare reform. Isn't there someone on this committee who can take Baucus out to the woodshed?
Posted by Citizen54 at 05/13/2009 @ 6:23pm
well, here is a video. honestly, 2 things come to mind.
1. although the protesters were reserved and dignified, baucus had to have them removed.
2. WHY THE HELL IS THIS INSURANCE COMPANY DINO MEAT PUPPET IN CHARGE OF THIS? and why are NO single payer reps involved in this process?
http://tinyurl.com/qkq2v7
Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/13/2009 @ 6:25pm
I believe in protest, but when you protest, you need to accept that if you break the law while protesting, accept that price and don't then complain about being arrested.
So Nichols tries to shame a Senator for upholding the rule of law. Which is ironic since Nichols is always ranting about what he believes is conservative violations of the rule of law.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/13/2009 @ 5:14pm
While I agree with you that if you break the law you are to be arrested and I definitely think that Nichols is leaving something out about the protesters and why they ACTUALLY got arrested, your first post shows not respect for the rule of law. You believe these people should be arrested because they want universal healthcare not because anything they did was illegal. Which would then suggest that you are all for protesting but only when what is being protested is something you agree with.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/13/2009 @ 6:29pm
Posted by tokenb at 05/13/2009 @ 6:19pm | ignore this person | warn this person
man...
you duckspeaking hypocritical fascists just can't stand it. hitler, eh?
hint...unlike your borderline retarded fellow satano-aynrando automatons...
a lot of smart people post here and that hitler bullshit just sort of plops on the floor and stinks.
but enjoy the explosive buttblast.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/13/2009 @ 6:31pm
My view is that they wanted the circus atmosphere and attention rather than being at the table.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/13/2009 @ 5:55pm
I think they wanted to be at the table and since they weren't allowed they decided to turn it into a circus which is about right when you are blatantly not representing a hugely popular view at a discussion for what's best for American citizens. They should have been included in the first place but their tactics weren't the way to go about getting included. I don't think it started out as just wanting attention.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/13/2009 @ 6:33pm
Posted by tokenb at 05/13/2009 @ 6:19pm
You are either a moron or need some medication.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/13/2009 @ 6:36pm
"My view is that they wanted the circus atmosphere and attention rather than being at the table"
of course. they're just clowning around. they're not actually serious or anything....
anti, you are so dumb it hurts...
Posted by darladoon at 05/13/2009 @ 6:42pm
Dr. Flowers discussed her arrest
hit those words in nichols' post. good explanation.
the more i look into this the more sickening it becomes.
NO SINGLE PAYER REPRESENTATIVES AT ALL?
not very representative...
yeah - time to make a big stink.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/13/2009 @ 6:44pm
While I agree with you that if you break the law you are to be arrested and I definitely think that Nichols is leaving something out about the protesters and why they ACTUALLY got arrested, your first post shows not respect for the rule of law. You believe these people should be arrested because they want universal healthcare not because anything they did was illegal. Which would then suggest that you are all for protesting but only when what is being protested is something you agree with.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/13/2009 @ 6:29pm
You are making an assumption that is incorrect. I watched the hearing and felt they should have been arrested solely for being disruptive and refusing to leave when asked by the Capital police. It has nothing to do with their marxist beliefs.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/13/2009 @ 6:56pm
If you would like to help pressure Congress to pass single payer health care please join our voting bloc at: http://www.votingbloc.org/Health_Bloc.php
Posted by pontesisto at 05/13/2009 @ 7:23pm
Anti, I seriously doubt if one doctor or nurse trying to be heard before Baucus was a "Marxist"--though so what if they had been? There are times when things are outrageous enough to justify a bit of verbal disruption--shame on Baucus for his refusal to let them speak. Good for Helen Thomas for giving Gibbs a hard time. If MLK had not caused some disruption, we would still have Jim Crow. Jefferson was right about needing periodic shakeups when the decks are stacked like this on healthcare. I think Tom Hayden was correct to anticipate demonstrations to pressure Obama. Good for the CNA--they sure speak for me.
Posted by mimsky at 05/13/2009 @ 7:36pm
Posted by pontesisto at 05/13/2009 @ 7:23pm | ignore this person | warn this person
thanks. that was useful.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/13/2009 @ 7:39pm
Posted by darladoon at 05/13/2009 @ 4:45pm:
Unfortunately, you believe that with single payer all someone has to do is go to the doctor and poof! they get fixed and walk out with a smile and... What you do not realize is that single payer really means is that healthcare must be rationed in order to control costs. The most expensive patients (old people) will be short-changed and be encouraged to just die rather than undergo expensive treatment to prolong meaningful life. I am also curious about another item - what are all the tort lawyers going to do? Will they collect form the cronies in government? They need to be fed also...
Posted by pyeatte at 05/13/2009 @ 10:51pm
The absurd notion of abandonment, trotted out as the medical equivalent of the 9-11 "brand" apparently is good, very good. Keep it up please. It means that we're getting closer to a real solution. How else to explain such a twisted notion? Never mind that it works everywhere else. The people aren't fooled. For as long as anyone has bothered to survey the citizenry the results have been the same: a single payer medical system favored by anywhere from 55% to upwards of 70%. This, of course, has not stopped Washington from claiming that no one supports such an idea. And as long as industry stooges like Baucus have even a modicum of power it will take all the effort in the world to a render a realistic solution from the profit-bound hide of big medicine. But it will get done. We all just need to keep on pushin'.
Posted by ncimon at 05/13/2009 @ 11:11pm
I am also curious about another item - what are all the tort lawyers going to do? Will they collect form the cronies in government? They need to be fed also...
Posted by pyeatte
That's right, the evil lawyers, who represent greedy malingering patients, file frivolous lawsuits against the cherubic insurance companies.
Posted by koroviev at 05/13/2009 @ 11:27pm
Kudos to the Capital Police for arresting these marxists who refuse to recognize the rule of law and the constitution. Posted by antisocialist at 05/13/2009 @ 4:31pm
I don't think you really know what a marxist is. You have your own definition. It's a pretty convenient name to call someone whose policies you don't understand. But I don't think that they are marxists. They're doctors and nurses, and one day you will be in the hospital yourself. Hopefully none of them will catch wind of your 'leanings'.
The real problem that no one is addressing is the unemployment angle. There are so many people involved in the health care facilitation process, the go-betweens and companies. Where would all these people go if they are no longer employed? Who knows, and I believe that this factor is a large sticking point in this debate that isn't being addressed.
Posted by ficheye at 05/13/2009 @ 11:40pm
mimsky is spot on. can't dispute much of that.
"Unfortunately, you believe that with single payer all someone has to do is go to the doctor and poof! they get fixed and walk out with a smile"
uh, when did i start believing this?
"what you do not realize is that single payer really means is that healthcare must be rationed in order to control costs"
if you had a holistic approach to health care, which ovelaps with education as well, then you cut costs. for instance, why aren't good, comphrehensive health habits (and good sex education) taught in public schools? it wouldn't be.......the conservatives would it?
they just hate to be told how to share a garden, 'cuz that's marxist. or how to build solar panels. 'cuz that's totally green hippie shit. or how to, you know, do yoga, 'cuz that's totally gay.
as for your statement, i have no idea what your point is. it certainly doesn't address the ethical, economical and moral imperative of single-payer health care.
other countries have done it. we can too. we're the best, right? or do you hate america?
Posted by darladoon at 05/13/2009 @ 11:43pm
I see a lot of ignorance here about single payer. First of all, please go to the physicians for national health plan site, pnhp.org, and read some about what is being proposed. As for the person who said the protesters "refused" to leave I saw the hearing too. There were no protesters who pushed a cop, hit a cop or shoved a cop. Now, what did you see?
posted by W Horter
Posted by willhort at 05/14/2009 @ 01:03am
...What you do not realize is that single payer really means is that healthcare must be rationed in order to control costs.
I am also curious about another item - what are all the tort lawyers going to do? Will they collect form the cronies in government? They need to be fed also...
Posted by pyeatte
If 50 million Americans don't have healthcare coverage, isn't healthcare already being rationed? Those who an insurance company can make money off of receive adequate healthcare and the rest do not.
Also, I am sick of anti-medical malpractice tort bullsh*t. The insurance companies want a cap on damages. Why don't the insurace companies give up some legal protections like a cap on corporate liability?
Posted by koroviev at 05/14/2009 @ 01:58am
I mentioned last week Malcolm Gladwell's book, Outliers. In it he quotes some statistic that measures public attitudes and opinions. On the Individualism - Collectivism scale the US is #1 in the world on Individualism and Guatamalla is #1 on the Collectivism scale.
Now America has a problem in that there are 25 - 35 million AMERICANS who don't have healthcare; the vast majority because they are too poor to afford it, but they are not poor enough to qualify for Medicaid.
A majority of Americans wish everyone had access to care. The phrase that describes everyone having access to care is called Universal coverage.
"Single Payor" is only one of many possible systems that created universal coverage. It happens to be the absolute most collectivist approach.
Here's the analogy. Say you are number #1 in power lifting. You just set a new Olympic record and won the gold. Imagine you decided that you don't want to life any more and that in 4 years you are going to come back and win the Olympic marathon.
Folks, that ain't gonna happen.
Instead of wasting you time bitching a Baucus and telling him any short of Guatamalla is an massive failure, why don't you figure out how to help the poor people that need your help.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/14/2009 @ 06:21am
Why don't the insurace companies give up some legal protections like a cap on corporate liability?
Posted by koroviev at 05/14/2009 @ 01:58am
What exactly does that entail?
Right now the cap on corporate liability is bankruptcy. If a jury full of high school drop outs in Mississippi is sitting in the jurry box and a tort lawyer, such as John Edwards, starts "channelling a stillborn baby" like he famously did to win himself $10s of millions in contingency fees, and the company doesn't have enough to remain solvent after words, the company is bankrupt.
Are you suggesting that any person or pension fund that owns stock in a healthcare company should be forced to pony up additional money out of their own pocket to make sure the judgement is paid in full?
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/14/2009 @ 06:27am
Nice to see that the conservative automatons remain steadfast in their defense of the chaos of the status quo.
Albert Einstein defined insanity thus:
"doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
The vaunted 'market' has not worked, nor will it ever.
Spare me the crapola about the fetters on the market, that it hasn't truly been a free market - look what lack of oversight did to the global economy.
Conservative policy: destroying one industry at a time, like a global game of dominos.
Posted by skeletonman at 05/14/2009 @ 06:42am
Conservative policy: destroying one industry at a time, like a global game of dominos.
Posted by skeletonman at 05/14/2009 @ 06:42am
In the Begining...
There was industry.
But after industry emerged spontaneoulsy from the primoridal ooze, the serpent tempted man with capitalism and free markets. It was free markets that destroyed industry, rather than created it.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/14/2009 @ 07:50am
You believe these people should be arrested because they want universal healthcare
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/13/2009 @ 6:29pm
Mask made a good point on the torture debate regarding framing the debate. The Nation used water boarding and torture interchangeably to obscure the existence of things like pulling off finger nails, breaking bones, rape, murdering people by filling them with salt water, etc.
So, I must object to your attempt to use "single payor" and "univerals coverage" interchangably. They are not the same thing.
Baucus had hearing on universal coverage. That is his goal. Single payor is one method some countries like Cuba have used to achieve universal coverage, but people who understand the realities of the USA circa 2009 know single payor is not a politically feasible option given opinions and values in the US population and so Baucus is working to provide Universal Coverage in a politically feasible way.
You can help him or you can contribute to a replay of 1993 by demanding perfection of a population the doesn't share all of your values. (They want cover for the poor, they don't want to cede control of thier lives to govt beureacrats.)
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/14/2009 @ 08:04am
So Comfy,
Every single person at the meeting was committed to universal coverage. The people who were removed were the ones demanding to waste the committee's time by talking about utopian single payor fantasies that aren't politically feasible in the USA in 2009.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/14/2009 @ 08:08am
One more thing: Obama never, ever gave any indication that he was receptive to discussing single payor during his campaign. His campaign promise was to improve the system of private insurance to achieve the goal of universal coverage-- not single payor. Many here criticized it as not going as far as Hillary's plan went.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/14/2009 @ 08:18am
Shit! I'm trying to be respectful. I saw too late that I wrote "Obama" instead of "President Obama". Please make a mental note that I meant the latter.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/14/2009 @ 08:20am
Is the ENTIRE COUNTRY really being held over a barrel by one Senator from a state that is #39 out of 50?
Posted by snowball666 at 05/14/2009 @ 08:31am
Well, I think you answered your own question. No, the entire country isn't being held over a barrel. President Obama picked a senator who shared his views on healthcare reform. The state he comes from is irrelevant.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/14/2009 @ 08:37am
But since he was a tyrannical fascist dictator jacked up on amphetamine let's just call him Adolph Hitler.---Posted by tokenb at 05/13/2009 @ 6:19pm
"Godwin's Law" violation....20 yard penalty and loss of control of the ball!
Posted by Mask at 05/14/2009 @ 08:46am
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/14/2009 @ 08:20am
Actually, Darin, what's buggin' me is this "payor" stuff. Once or twice in other threads was okay, but kinda irritating.
It's "payer".
Posted by Mask at 05/14/2009 @ 08:48am
Kudos to the Capital Police for arresting these marxists who refuse to recognize the rule of law and the constitution.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/13/2009 @ 4:31pm
BOO!
---
"That is his goal. Single payor is one method some countries like Cuba have used to achieve universal coverage,"DARIN
Any other countries "like " Cuba out there that have used such a system?
Maybe Denmark, Sweden, Canada, Taiwan?
When discussing capitalism, why not use Iraq as the Prime Example? Or, why not use Bear Stearns as the model for debate about investment firms?
Could it be, once again, that you are afraid of change, and seek to set the debate between Cuban communism vs any other system than the one in place now? I would think that you, as a well educated elite, and an actuary, would be able to see that multiple avenues are available for changing an obviously broken system. Single payer does work in other countries. Why are you against looking at what works and taking th good parts?
Fear?
Ideology?
Am I the only one that sees a pattern here?
Posted by crabwalk at 05/14/2009 @ 09:21am
Baucus should do a year in the ChimpCo Presidential Library cell block "D" for following in Chimpies footsteps of arresting those that disagree with the continuation of a failed status quo. it may be the Senate Committee room, but the Dr's and Nurses pay for the air/heat/chairs/paper/lunch etc.
And Darin/LUVVY- do know where they arrest people for speaking up against the guvt?
Cuba.
Think on it, teabaggers.
Posted by crabwalk at 05/14/2009 @ 09:27am
For those that continue to spread fear of "socilialized medicine, please take some of your valuable time to read what "the troops" say...
http://www.pnhp.org/facts
/singlepayer_faq.php#rationing
"We have 900 billing clerks at Duke (medical system, 900 bed hospital). I am not sure we have a nurse for each bed, but we have a billing clerk for each bed, it's obscene."-Dr. Ewe Reinhardt.
Is national health insurance ‘socialized medicine'?
No. Socialized medicine is a system in which doctors and hospitals work for and draw salaries from the government. Doctors in the Veterans Administration and the Armed Services are paid this way.
---
Last I checked, the conservatives LOVE the way the military is run.
Posted by crabwalk at 05/14/2009 @ 09:33am
"Won't this result in rationing like in Canada?
The U.S. already rations care. Rationing in U.S. health care is based on income: if you can afford care, you get it; if you can't, you don't. A recent study by the prestigious Institute of Medicine found that 18,000 Americans die every year because they don't have health insurance. Many more skip treatments that their insurance company refuses to cover. That's rationing. Other countries do not ration in this way.
If there is this much rationing, why don't we hear about it? And if other countries ration less, why do we hear about them? The answer is that their systems are publicly accountable, and ours is not. Problems with their health care systems are aired in public; ours are not."
More Americans die due to lack of insurance than were killed by Usama.
What was the reaction to Usama?
Socialized warfare.
Posted by crabwalk at 05/14/2009 @ 09:36am
Posted by Mask at 05/14/2009 @ 08:48am
Sorry, and thanks for the correction.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/14/2009 @ 09:37am
With beef being one of Montana's chief products, it's no surprise that Baucus has a jaundiced viewpoint on healthcare. Was recently in a feed store & the clerk thought my bag of chicken feed belonged to a thickset, well marbled guy standing next to me. "Do I look like a chicken farmer", he guffawed. "No, I thought, you look like a heart attack waiting to happen." I smiled & he smirked. Haha.
Baucus is trying to make points with the Montan 'bubs & the nationwide "realists". What a disgrace.
Posted by Sorelish at 05/14/2009 @ 09:42am
Where do they waterboard dissenters?
Cuba
N. Korea
Where do they jail people for years without trials?
Cuba
N. Korea
Obviously the cons are ABLE to take what they like from such countries when it suits their needs.
Posted by crabwalk at 05/14/2009 @ 09:44am
Posted by Sorelish at 05/14/2009 @ 09:42am |
: ) with you.
Important reading:
Frank Luntz's "The Language of Healthcare 2009"
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2009
/may/frank_luntzs_the_l.php
Next, we will read comments about how "the left" is drinking kool-aid.
They will miss the irony, again.
Posted by crabwalk at 05/14/2009 @ 09:47am
Cuba
N. Korea
Posted by crabwalk at 05/14/2009 @ 09:44am
Hey Crabman,
One ever-so-slight difference here: Castro and Il waterboard CITIZENS who criticize the government. The US waterboards TERRORISTS who have dedicated their lives to the purpose of mudering CITIZENS.
First case government serves the dictators at the expense of the citizens. In the second case the governmnet serves the citizens at the expense of those who use terror to dictate to the citizens.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/14/2009 @ 09:48am
Comparing waterboarding in Cuba and the US is like comparing a jail for perpetrators and a jail for victims.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/14/2009 @ 09:51am
Hey, I just stumbled on a very interesting analogy with the jail for victims. In the US a rapist is put in jail. In the countries where the terrorists come from, it is the victim of rape who is punished by whiping.
Claiming a moral equivalence between the US and Cuba or N Korea on waterboarding is like claiming a moral equivalence between the legal treatment of rape in the US and in Iran.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/14/2009 @ 09:55am
Maybe Denmark, Sweden, Canada, Taiwan?
Posted by crabwalk at 05/14/2009 @ 09:21am
Anyway, back to healthcare...
Okay, listing only Cuba instead of these or England, France, Germany, etc... was unhelpful and unnecessary.
But the central point remains: The US is the country where public opinion believes responsibility falls on the individual more than the collective as compared to every other country in the world.
I'll say it again: The US population favors subsidizing those who can't pay for themselves. They most definitely do not favor ceding control of their own lives to the government/collective.
You've heard of "support" that is a mile wide and an inch deep, well in the US support for single payer is a mile deep, but only an inch wide.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/14/2009 @ 10:05am
No. Socialized medicine is a system in which doctors and hospitals work for and draw salaries from the government. Doctors in the Veterans Administration and the Armed Services are paid this way.
Posted by crabwalk at 05/14/2009 @ 09:33am
The key element of socialization is how the consumer pays, not how the provider is compensated.
The VA is not socialized medicine. The government contracted with recruits to provide healthcare as a benefit for joining the service. The consumer/soldier "paid" by serving and accepting a paycheck that is lower than he could get in private industry.
The Government could fulfil the obligation to soldiers by paying for treatment recieved from private doctors, it's just more cost effective to run their own hospitals. That doesn't make it socialized.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/14/2009 @ 10:12am
What did 'Conservative Policy' actually MAKE?...
What great advancements were brought to man by repealing Glass-Steagall ...
Posted by snowball666 at 05/14/2009 @ 09:47am
Free markets are the most efficient mechansim for allocating scarce resources among a population; however, they are prone to volatility, fruad, corruption, and violence.
Lightly reglulated free markets are pretty efficient, and are less volitile, less corrupt and less violent than completely free markets.
Heavily regulated markets are inefficient, the are generally non-volitile, with incredibly volitile exceptions, they are corrupt, and they require government violence to stamp down the black markets that inevitably crop up.
The elimination of all markets through government force requires tyrany and spawns tremendous corruption and violence. See the defunct USSR and Cuba where people who try to escape are jailed.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/14/2009 @ 10:23am
Continued...
Conservative policy tries to improve efficiency by reducing market regulations deemed unecessary. Sometimes we are wrong or naive.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/14/2009 @ 10:25am
No. Socialized medicine is a system ...
Posted by crabwalk at 05/14/2009 @ 09:33am
According to your definition, Medicare isn't socialized medicine because the doctors don't draw a salary from the government.
According to mine it is socialized because the consumer "pays" for insurance through the OASDI payroll tax over the course of a lifetime and recieved care after they turn 65. And it is legally mandated that you paricipate spreading the risk over the entire population.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/14/2009 @ 10:28am
What I find amazing is that Baucus won't listen to doctors and nurses on the subject, but the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute is heard from. What kind of crap is this? Since when is the AEI an authority on health care?
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 05/14/2009 @ 10:33am
Back to political feasability:
When Clinton nominated Ginsberg, I'm sure some yahoos showed up thinking they could blocker. Not politically feasible.
In 2002, with Bush in the WH and increased majorities in both the House and Senate, I'm sure there were yahoos that showed up to tax committee meetings and demanded a repeal of the 16th amendment and replacement with the "fair tax" (a flat VAT).
Not politically feasible.
The model of governing isn't say whatever it take to get into power and then ram you opinions down other peoples' throats. You can only accomplish what is popluarly supported.
Take the war in Iraq. Bush didn't say I'm President and I can do whatever I want. He felt the need to make his case with the public. The Nation tried to make their case. And Bush had 70% support from the population before goint to war.
Please be honest with yourselfs. You craft your poll questions in terms of universal coverage and then you use the results to pretend there is support for single payer.
There just isn't.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/14/2009 @ 10:39am
blocker = block her
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/14/2009 @ 10:40am
And it is legally mandated that you paricipate spreading the risk over the entire population.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/14/2009 @ 10:28am
Yes, if the entire population shares the risk, the cost will go down. Aren't you the dude in the insurance industry? You're just worried that you might actually have some comptition that will run your company out of business.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 05/14/2009 @ 10:51am
comptition...damn fingers need some lunch evidently...should be competition.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 05/14/2009 @ 10:52am
God was just not on McCain's side, son. Maybe he fell out of favor over dealing with that demon Keating.----Posted by snowball666 at 05/14/2009 @ 08:56am
Always love that. Remember back when they were telling us it was "God's will that Dubya got elected"? Guess the Big Guy got out of the election business in 2008, huh?
Posted by Mask at 05/14/2009 @ 11:29am
The US waterboards TERRORISTS who have dedicated their lives to the purpose of mudering CITIZENS.-----Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/14/2009 @ 09:48am
Really? EVERYBODY "interrogated" was guilty?
Posted by Mask at 05/14/2009 @ 11:34am
I think both Obama and the Congress is underestimating just how important healthcare is to this country. with 50 million uninsured and as many again under insured that alone is one third the population. But it goes beyond that and extends to the competitiveness of business. All the talk of the labor costs of Detroit versus Toyota for example, the fact is Toyota provides no or very little in the way of benefits yet healthcare is a big part of labor costs in Detroit, as it is across America. Allowing those like Baucus or Nelson who represent the insurance companies to design a new version of the old system in the interests of profit rather than in the interest of health care, is not going to ensure the future of the democratic party in office. 2012 will be here all too soon. I support Obama but he had better get rid of the attorney hat and put on his "For the People" hat. Thats who elected him and who elected Baucus and Nelson for that matter.
Posted by ROinReno at 05/14/2009 @ 11:38am
Crabwalk- Thanks for the PNHP link. Lots to keep me busy there. Health care will never be legitimate until the massive administrative costs & profits of the present system are pared.
Posted by Sorelish at 05/14/2009 @ 11:46am
Posted by ROinReno at 05/14/2009 @ 11:38am | ignore this person | warn this person
well said.
i don't see this as a question of ideology at all. some yahoos insist on framing it so, but i just see it as adaptation to survive and prosper - pragmatic functionalism.
once in place, a single payer system will help most and hurt none but the "pre-existing condition" denying parasitic health insurance companies...
considering the amount of support there is out there for single payer it is abominable that dino meat puppet of the insurance industry baucus (or whoever the hell is responsible) COMPLETELY EXCLUDED REPRESENTATIVES OF SINGLE PAYER PROPOSALS.
no excuse for that. PROTEST AND DISRUPT ON!!!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/14/2009 @ 11:51am
Posted by ROinReno at 05/14/2009 @ 11:38am
Well said.
Posted by Extraneous at 05/14/2009 @ 11:51am
Yes, if the entire population shares the risk, the cost will go down. Aren't you the dude in the insurance industry? You're just worried that you might actually have some comptition that will run your company out of business.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 05/14/2009 @ 10:51am
You are completely wrong in your assumption that spreading the risk reduces cost.
For a given risk, a larger risk pool will reduce volatility. This does not lower the expected cost. It could lower the amount of capital required which would lower required profit margins (return on capital), but it does not lower expected costs.
Furthermore, economics tell us that third party payer systems are the worst for restraining costs becuase there is zero disincentive against wasting resources. One of the reasons healthcare costs have gone from 7% of GDP to 15% of GDP in a generation is because people don't actually pay for their own care. Since someone else is paying, people always want more without limit.
Also I'm in the life insurance industry, not the health insurance industry. Being a close relative, I understand the economics better than most non-actuaries, but not as well as health actuaries. My company does not do any medical insurance in the US so there is no competition angle here.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/14/2009 @ 11:55am
The US waterboards TERRORISTS who have dedicated their lives to the purpose of mudering CITIZENS.-----Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/14/2009 @ 09:48am
Really? EVERYBODY "interrogated" was guilty?
Posted by Mask at 05/14/2009 @ 11:34am
Yes, all three of them were guilty.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/14/2009 @ 11:56am
All the talk of the labor costs of Detroit versus Toyota for example, the fact is Toyota provides no or very little in the way of benefits yet healthcare is a big part of labor costs in Detroit,
Posted by ROinReno at 05/14/2009 @ 11:38am
I've not studied this, but my understanding is that The Big Three promised healthcare for life if you reached retirement and promised something much more valuable than Medicare.
Right now all the Conservative political commentators that are writing about President Obama's "assult on the rule of law" are pointing out that superior claimants of Chrysler are getting 27% while subordinate claimants (The UAW) are getting 50% which is completely opposite of what the rule of law requires. That 50% represent about $10 billion out of $20 billion that Chrysler owes to the retirement healthcare fund.
My understanding is that the US operations of Toyota, BMW, Honda, etc. They only pay for current healthcare, not lifetime.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/14/2009 @ 12:04pm
No. Socialized medicine is a system in which doctors and hospitals work for and draw salaries from the government. Doctors in the Veterans Administration and the Armed Services are paid this way.
Posted by crabwalk at 05/14/2009 @ 09:33am
The key element of socialization is how the consumer pays, not how the provider is compensated.
The VA is not socialized medicine. The government contracted with recruits to provide healthcare as a benefit for joining the service. The consumer/soldier "paid" by serving and accepting a paycheck that is lower than he could get in private industry.
The Government could fulfil the obligation to soldiers by paying for treatment recieved from private doctors, it's just more cost effective to run their own hospitals. That doesn't make it socialized.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/14/2009 @ 10:12am
Darin,
The critical factor beyond what you addressed is that the military personnel surrender their freedom to go elsewhere for medical care. This is done primarily out of necessity.
I cannot imagine that Crab or any other liberal would surrender their freedom of movement and time in exchange for govt healthcare. Some may; I've been surprised before by their willingness to surrender liberty in order to advance socialism,
Posted by antisocialist at 05/14/2009 @ 12:25pm
Always love that. Remember back when they were telling us it was "God's will that Dubya got elected"? Guess the Big Guy got out of the election business in 2008, huh?
Posted by Mask at 05/14/2009 @ 11:29am
It is not assumed by Christians that G-d has a hand on all presidential elections.
In the case of Bush, most Christians including myself still believe that G-d had in His plans to have Bush as president during this time.
It was actually spoken in a prophetic word in 1998 by Evangelist Perry Stone.
In 1997, friend and Prophet Kim Clement, prophecied that the next president would be a born-again, spirit-filled man of prayer.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/14/2009 @ 12:57pm
Yes, all three of them were guilty.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/14/2009 @ 11:56am
No all the guilty guys were tortured...I asked, were all the ones tortured guilty?
Posted by Mask at 05/14/2009 @ 12:58pm
My company does not do any medical insurance in the US so there is no competition angle here.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/14/2009 @ 11:55am |
No, but you are in the business, and let me say that again.....the BUSINESS of insurance. That's where our paths stray. Health care should not be run on a profit basis. I don't see any reason why doctors, nurses and health care professionals can't make a good living, but insurance companies along with hospital administrators are taking the lions share of the profits Our national defense isn't run on a profit basis, and neither should our health care.
All insurance companies are, is the middle man, and if they weren't making money, they wouldn't be the middle man now would they? If we treated our health care system in this country half as seriously as we do with the military industrial complex, we'd have the best medical care in the world. Instead, we have the best paid insurance companies and pharmaceutical salesmen in the world, but our health care ain't so grand.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 05/14/2009 @ 1:13pm
No, but you are in the business, and let me say that again.....the BUSINESS of insurance. That's where our paths stray. Posted by Wolfgang1 at 05/14/2009 @ 1:13pm
Exactly. He's in the BUSINESS of figuring out how to exclude NUMBERS from his DATA to maximize PROFIT. So his position is perfectly understandable. Not supportable, but he's got a boat to buy!
Posted by ficheye at 05/14/2009 @ 1:19pm
No all the guilty guys were tortured...I asked, were all the ones tortured guilty?
Posted by Mask at 05/14/2009 @ 12:58pm
Of course he can't answer that question because no trial had taken place before the torturing began. That's kind of a sticking point isn't it? What if the guy you are torturing doesn't know anything or worse yet, is the wrong guy?
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 05/14/2009 @ 1:28pm
Comparing waterboarding in Cuba and the US is like comparing a jail for perpetrators and a jail for victims.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/14/2009 @ 09:51am |
But, comparing Swedens health care sytem with Cubas is...
what exactly?
Say you are a weightlifter.... and Castro kill six chickens a day, a genie magically appears and offers you a stay in GITMO, and the outliers play the Sixers in the first round of play-offs...
Who are you..
Answer-Darin the mixologist.
---
Yes, all three of them were guilty.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/14/2009 @ 11:56a
including those that were stacked in homo-erotic poses for your enjoyment?
---
Posted by antisocialist at 05/14/2009 @ 12:57pm
OMG. Zowie.
God put Bush in, but then lost control of him about Sept 2008, I guess.
---
"I cannot imagine that Crab or any other liberal would surrender their freedom of movement and time in exchange for govt healthcare."
I surrender my "freedom of movement" by having employer supplied health insurance. If I switch employers, or lose my job (as I have done), I lose health care coverage. When I lost my insurance, I get to start over, with "pre-existing conditions" severely limiting my access to insurance.
When I ask why the employer health care coverage is 1/5 the cost of what I can buy in "the market" I am told it is because the employer has group rates. Last I checked, 300,000,000 Americans makes up one nice group rate.
Posted by crabwalk at 05/14/2009 @ 1:42pm
"The US population favors subsidizing those who can't pay for themselves. They most definitely do not favor ceding control of their own lives to the government/collective. "-FRANKLUNTZKOOL_AID DRINKER
If you continue to ignore the reality of single payer syatems, we cannot debate. Nobody "cedes control" of their lives to govt entities under SP. It is a lie, a myth, propaganda...
oh, wait, I forgot who I am dealing with.
hence your belief in falsehoods, like "everybody interrogated was a terrorist", or Saddam was an imminent threat to you.
BTW, I may have missed your answer, but I have asked about 5 times, what are the odds of being the victim of a terrorist attack in the USA?
What are the odds of dying due to lack of health care coverage?
And, getting back to hijacking a thread, would you pull the toe nails out of a 7 year old if he knew the whereabouts of his father, a suspected terrorist?
Posted by crabwalk at 05/14/2009 @ 1:49pm
Now, Darins philosophy, and he is joined in this by many other neo-cons, is that each person should pay his/her own medical expenses.
I could agree with that.
In order to do that we would need to increase wages across the board, which would mean a decrease in the amount paid to the top.
And that is something the neo-cons argue against as vociferously as they argue against saving money with a SP system.
So, on one hand they argue FOR individual payments, but will go apeshit if you agree to that, by paying people wages high enough to be able to afford ; an appendectomy ($22K), a stay in intensive care $10k/day), a colonoscopy every two years ($3k each), an MRI ($2.8K each), let alone heart surgery ($50-80k).
i am wondering, Smarter Than Me fellers, what would the average wage in America have to be to allow every person to set aside their own medical expenses? And, would you agree to a minimum wage at that level?
Posted by crabwalk at 05/14/2009 @ 1:56pm
I surrender my "freedom of movement" by having employer supplied health insurance. If I switch employers, or lose my job (as I have done), I lose health care coverage. When I lost my insurance, I get to start over, with "pre-existing conditions" severely limiting my access to insurance.
When I ask why the employer health care coverage is 1/5 the cost of what I can buy in "the market" I am told it is because the employer has group rates. Last I checked, 300,000,000 Americans makes up one nice group rate.
Posted by crabwalk at 05/14/2009 @ 1:42pm
switching jobs or even losing a job is not surrendering freedom.
And group health care is more expensive, not less expensive in most cases.
the reason is that they must accept everyone, including bad risks and thus have to increase premiums on everyone including the healthy in order to cover the risk.
You can have two companies with the same number of employees and have drastically different rates due to employee claims history.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/14/2009 @ 1:57pm
BTW, if someone came to me and said
"Crab, if you serve in Americorp for 4 years, we will give you health care coverage for the rest of your life"
I would probably take it.
I have a friend that served 9 months in 'Nam. He gets free care at the VA, including check-ups to a pacemaker to cancer treatment. He oves the system, loves the dr's, and pays not a dime out of his pocket.
My father served 2 years in the Navy, stationed at Treasure Island I believe. He road around in a little boat, never saw combat, never saved a single Americans life. Now he gets medicare/VA coverage. He loves it. But then, he was teabagging the other night, moaning about socialism. I asked him if he liked his medicare/VA health care. He said he loves it. I pointed out that both are forms of socialism. He claimed he paid his way. I asked him if he paid what he is getting out of it. He laughed and said "I get a LOT more then I paid in".
Like the cons here, he missed the irony of his own situation, didn't see his hypocrisy, now does he have any compassion for those that don't get to avail themselves of his evil socialized medicine.
Posted by crabwalk at 05/14/2009 @ 2:05pm
I have a friend that served 9 months in 'Nam. He gets free care at the VA, including check-ups to a pacemaker to cancer treatment. He oves the system, loves the dr's, and pays not a dime out of his pocket.
My father served 2 years in the Navy, stationed at Treasure Island I believe. He road around in a little boat, never saw combat, never saved a single Americans life. Now he gets medicare/VA coverage. He loves it. But then, he was teabagging the other night, moaning about socialism. I asked him if he liked his medicare/VA health care. He said he loves it. I pointed out that both are forms of socialism. He claimed he paid his way. I asked him if he paid what he is getting out of it. He laughed and said "I get a LOT more then I paid in".
Like the cons here, he missed the irony of his own situation, didn't see his hypocrisy, now does he have any compassion for those that don't get to avail themselves of his evil socialized medicine.
Posted by crabwalk at 05/14/2009 @ 2:05pm
VA benefits are only given free for service related injuries.
All Veterans have access to VA services on a Means Tested Basis. If you earn enough to purchase health insurance, the coverage is not free.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/14/2009 @ 2:10pm
"switching jobs or even losing a job is not surrendering freedom. "
It is an equivalent to what you use as a fear based debating tactic. Nobody would lose "freedom" by having a SP system, any more than I lose freedom when I lost my job. Actually I lose more "freedom" because I lose the ability to keep my wife healthy without going broke.
Unless you want to argue that having more money does not equal more freedom?
See, I just lost my job. My wife is getting treated for cancer. She is losing hours due to the treatments side effects.
I am working in my shop till the wee hours to pay, but it will not be enough, partly because my customers are losing their jobs and/or making less than they were 2 years ago.
If I cannot pay, guess who is going to pick up the tab?
You are, the next time you go get treatment.
Or, my wife will go away to sit with the Bridegroom Jesus Christ. It will be a fucking blessing from God, so say the evangelicals I know.
That is the reality, not some neo-conservative theory of fear of marxist ideology.
Posted by crabwalk at 05/14/2009 @ 2:15pm
Posted by antisocialist at 05/14/2009 @ 2:10pm
That's a great theory, but the actual story on the ground is different.
My dad could afford separate coverage, but he hides his money in various tax shelters, trust funds and expenses his own myriad travels as "business".
Then he moans about socialism, while he visits the VA and has his Dr take his medicare.
Classic, isn't it?
Posted by crabwalk at 05/14/2009 @ 2:19pm
My dad could afford separate coverage, but he hides his money in various tax shelters, trust funds and expenses his own myriad travels as "business".
Then he moans about socialism, while he visits the VA and has his Dr take his medicare.
Classic, isn't it?
Posted by crabwalk at 05/14/2009 @ 2:19pm
Well, not to be rude, but you're saying your father is being dishonest.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/14/2009 @ 2:23pm
Last I checked, 300,000,000 Americans makes up one nice group rate.
Posted by crabwalk at 05/14/2009 @ 1:42pm
Crab, Don't pay any attention to the man behind the curtain!!
I can hear the thugs now. 300,000,000 Americans being covered by one policy would be socialism or communism or something terribly terribly evil. Especially if they can't get in there somehow and make a buck off it.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 05/14/2009 @ 3:32pm
And in our system, those effects disappear or are at least no more relevant than they were...unlike the PEOPLE who need to be treated either way.
Posted by snowball666 at 05/14/2009 @ 3:31pm
If you believe that is the better way, then support Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr.'s bill to amend the constitution to allow for Universal Healthcare. It will simply complete the bankruptcy of our nation, but go for it.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/14/2009 @ 3:42pm
Are you saying markets can't exist without excessive conservatism?
Posted by snowball666 at 05/14/2009 @ 09:47am
Wouldn't 'excessive conservative' an oxymoron?
Sort of like doing everything possible to do nothing whatsoever?
Kind of like getting a PhD, actually.
Posted by skeletonman at 05/14/2009 @ 4:40pm
that should read "be an oxymoron?"
Posted by skeletonman at 05/14/2009 @ 5:20pm
Are you suggesting that any person or pension fund that owns stock in a healthcare company should be forced to pony up additional money out of their own pocket to make sure the judgement is paid in full?
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll
Yes.
Also, any chapter sub-S, closely held corporation would only offer so much protection from personal liablility. Owners would be personally liable for any judgement that exceeds the statutory cap.
Posted by koroviev at 05/15/2009 @ 12:42am