Oh please, private companies change insurance plans without any impetuous from the government. Only a fool the size of the cliche’ UAW worker a couple months ago thinks that businesses are going to be able to continue providing the current insurance benefits, eating double digit percentage cost increases annually.
Trying to whip up horror at the prospect of the government providing a more attractive plan such that people will want to switch to it is a bit of stretch. If a private employer forces their employees to a government plan AND it is inferior, that private employer faces the same competitive loss in the employment market as if they decided to drop healthcare altogether.
Yeah, all the companies will go Walmart … expecting the gov’t to provide health care.
My own company has changed insurance three times in less than two years, each time going to something more oppressive and controlling. This time around, my DEDUCTIBLE is $4000. What sense is there in paying for something I can’t use? This is the monster created by the government years ago when they midwifed HMOs. I’m certainly not jumping (as people did with the promise of cheap rates of HMOs) for a gov’t plan either.
But ultimately, none of us will have any choice. He’s planning penalties for those of us who refuse. Educate yourselves on the WHOLE plan.
Posted by: Eyes Open | June 23, 2009, 11:22 pm 11:22 pm
Eyes Open:”My own company has changed insurance three times in less than two years, each time going to something more oppressive and controlling. This time around, my DEDUCTIBLE is $4000. ”
This is a good argument for a government plan. No other first world nation has the problem you’ve experienced, and they have equivalent levels of care while spending one half to one third what Americans spend. Those are the documented facts that support what your anecdotal experience illustrates: The current system is broken and getting worse.
jhw539- Maybe your father was a communist, or something (no disrespect intended). There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding with the role of a government that has the power to mint its own currency. The money is the government’s carrot, for a stick which is extended in three parts: through ‘free’ disbursments, through qualification through compliance with policy, and through capital/note holder transactions. The remainder is free-market transactions legal or illegal. The notion that the government can both print the currency as well as provide a service for the currency is rediculous and the essential premise of communist idealogues.
Posted by: MarkLeavenworth | June 24, 2009, 12:15 am 12:15 am
In case you are interested in real solutions, healthcare is too complex for the government to manage, the human organism being far more complex than any state. But if the objective is to limit the funds flowing into healthcare, which cannot be done effectively without limiting services (since the fact is, that government cannot disperse funds more efficiently than healthcare professionals, regardless of who is doing the analysis), then the government has general policy only at its disposal. Control of funds specifically leads to corruption, but more policy creates inefficiency and avoidance. (Sorry to government officials, but the entire system was designed against you, to secure liberty for the people.) Still, if you are courageous, you can use these facts to good effect, placing policy as a barrior and something to be avoided, and at such limits as you wish should not be crossed, that is to say, when a patient’s billings are such-and-such an amount, then a new tier of policy comes into play, etc. The limits you can create in such a general way through cost initiated tiers of national policy are almost without number.
Posted by: MarkLeavenworth | June 24, 2009, 12:37 am 12:37 am
The illusion of European success with social services has been built on the post WWII dominance of the dollar, combined with all the various friendly transactions that have provided europe with a net inflow of goods. We are now at the peak of a remake of that arrangement with China, where a net inflow of goods, in this case nice plastic things with cute themes and colors, give us the illusion that our domestic fundamentals are sound. How rediculous if we look at the huge WWII SKF enterprise buildings as supporting their own weight in healthcare services while our military dumped cheap labor, cheap raw materials and cheap oil onto their shores on the back of the debt-ladden dollar. It’s like the hare looking back at the start of the race to prove how well he slept, and to make the case that he should now walk slowly like the tourtise, which has passed him.
Posted by: MarkLeavenworth | June 24, 2009, 1:03 am 1:03 am
Why the “Infomercial” format for the Health Care town hall? I guess “the fairness doctrine” is not going to happen here, but you could at least involve some serious journalists in this event. You guys really need to bring Ted Kopple back, whatever it might cost. But at least involve Tapper, Stossel, or someone able cut through the bull and not back down until they get a solid answer. Stephanopoulos is brilliant, but is so in the tank for his “big O” that he can’t see straight! But using Diane Sawyer to host this infomercial is just sad! What happened to the hard-hitting ABC News I grew up with???
Posted by: Anne Obomanation | June 24, 2009, 1:03 am 1:03 am
MarkLeavenworth, IRS is pretty regular in dispersing fund and pretty well managed, so, I don’t think fund disbursement will be any issue for govt plans. I fear more corruption from public with false claims than government official themselves. From the payor POV, I think both non-profit and profit healthcare organization like Blueshield and Kaiser will face big competition. Today, nobody knows or question why healthcare cost is so high and with the government coming into picture, they feel threatened as these companies will loose their leverage. From the provider side, I don’t see any issue as long as Govt offer PPO and HMO and as long as every individual who take govt plan pays for the plan.
Posted by: Tim | June 24, 2009, 1:14 am 1:14 am
Tim- I’m still amazed at how many foreign accents enter these conversations on the government side.
Posted by: MarkLeavenworth | June 24, 2009, 1:18 am 1:18 am
It will be interesting to see what government actually puts forward as a plan, rather than what people on this blog are currently guessing about and condemning.
Posted by: danita | June 24, 2009, 1:37 am 1:37 am
MarkLeavenworth, This is just a govt heathcare plan and you have an option to buy the private one if you do not like it. Nobody is forcing it on you. If no one buys govt plan, they will withdraw it. But, I would like to give an opportunity. Also, sorry for not getting your foreign related context, struggling to understand how govt heathcare is related foreigner.
Posted by: Tim | June 24, 2009, 1:41 am 1:41 am
danita, exactly that is my point.
Posted by: Tim | June 24, 2009, 1:42 am 1:42 am
Hey, I have an idea. Why don’t you foreigners just come over here and take over everything? Then we won’t ever have to work on anything ever again!
Posted by: MarkLeavenworth | June 24, 2009, 2:01 am 2:01 am
Or maybe it’s better said, ‘misery enjoys company’.
Posted by: MarkLeavenworth | June 24, 2009, 2:03 am 2:03 am
And don’t worry, Danita, I’m sure the plan will only be as much towards your ideal of total government control as can pass the eyes and stomach of the American public.
Posted by: MarkLeavenworth | June 24, 2009, 2:06 am 2:06 am
You can’t get it all done in one bill.
Posted by: MarkLeavenworth | June 24, 2009, 2:08 am 2:08 am
Obama to USA: “I won”
Obama to protesters: “You lost”
Posted by: Molon Labe | June 24, 2009, 2:48 am 2:48 am
I for one do not protest the intentions of the President. I honestly believe he would agree that healthcare is too complicated for government to make even negligible improvements through direct management if he knew the reasons.
Posted by: MarkLeavenworth | June 24, 2009, 3:04 am 3:04 am
This is vintage Obama and it’s exactly what he did in the IL Senate. He voted “present” on Iran until it was safe to take a tough stance.
He is a coward. He is far more interested in his own political safety than he is in principle.
Posted by: drjohn | June 24, 2009, 7:31 am 7:31 am
Tim wrote, in response to incredibly well-argued and well-written statements by MarkLeavenworth, ” Nobody is forcing it on you. If no one buys govt plan, they will withdraw it.”
Tim, you miss the point entirely. As Jake pointed to in his question yesterday, the government plan will not be required to make a profit and can even sustain losses. It is rather like when WalMart comes into a small town and runs the local businesses out of business. Private insurance companies will be at a massive disadvantage when they must compete against a government entity. FOr openers, the government will not have to be profitable. But even more importantly, the government is going to be making the rules, and then you expect those rules not to advantage the government and not to make it harder for the private companies to have a level playing field on which to compete?
So while the government will say people have a choice, many businesses will will vote with their feet, leaving workers in the public plan whether that is their preference or not. We will move inexorably toward a single-payer plan even if it is not in the original bill, if that bill contains a public option.
Posted by: moderate | June 24, 2009, 8:04 am 8:04 am
drjohn:”He voted “present” on Iran until it was safe to take a tough stance.”
In exactly the same way Reagan voted present on the Solidarity protests (look up his actual statements – it looks like Obama cribbed from them) or Bush Sr masterfully voted present on the coup that brought down the USSR in 1989.
The proper response to internal popular unrest in an enemy is well known and Obama followed it to the T, although he surely wished he could have gone off and racked up ‘sounding tough’ soundbites on TV like the irresponsible Republicans did.
Posted by: jhw539 | June 24, 2009, 8:11 am 8:11 am
And you know, the hypocricy and injustice of demanding that young students adhere strictly to the rule of law and lawful order while not condemning, even tacitly supporting, plane-clothes quasi-para-military mature civilians who go around bashing heads and shooting people in the street is really lacking in a unified and disciplined approach to lawful order and oneness in the truth.
Posted by: MarkLeavenworth | June 24, 2009, 8:13 am 8:13 am
“Poles fought for their freedom for so many years that they hold in special esteem those who backed them in their struggle. Support was the test of friendship. President Reagan was such a friend. His policy of aiding democratic movements in Central and Eastern Europe in the dark days of the Cold War meant a lot to us. We knew he believed in a few simple principles such as human rights, democracy and civil society. He was someone who was convinced that the citizen is not for the state, but vice-versa, and that freedom is an innate right.
I often wondered why Ronald Reagan did this, taking the risks he did, in supporting us at Solidarity, as well as dissident movements in other countries behind the Iron Curtain, while pushing a defense buildup that pushed the Soviet economy over the brink. Let’s remember that it was a time of recession in the U.S. and a time when the American public was more interested in their own domestic affairs. It took a leader with a vision to convince them that there are greater things worth fighting for. Did he seek any profit in such a policy? Though our freedom movements were in line with the foreign policy of the United States, I doubt it.”
Lech Valesa, 2004
Posted by: drjohn | June 24, 2009, 8:22 am 8:22 am
Sarkozy and Merkel took the lead on this. Obama hid under Michelle’s skirt and wached to see where all the popular kids went.
Only then did he take a tough stance.
It is exactly as he did in IL.
Posted by: drjohn | June 24, 2009, 8:24 am 8:24 am
This so called illegal Presidente is a wimp,he is afraid of his own shadow.I fear the our Beautiful Country with him in the white house.I say God please help us we need you now more the Obama who is trying to take your place.
Posted by: Joeray | June 24, 2009, 9:01 am 9:01 am
From ABC interview with the president: “We have not drawn lines in the sand, other than that reform has to control costs and that it has to provide relief to people who don’t have health insurance or are under-insured”
The basic scheme sounds like the government is willing to make a bailout for the healthcare insurance industry through mandating (massive income tax increase) insurance, under the assumption that there is some way to guarantee that once more funds are forced into the system, and many more people made able to use the system in a more comprehensive way, that the costs will somehow not continue to expand again beyond the point that they can be paid.
The first, oppressive, notion on funding a bailout through a massive income tax hike is supposed to give individuals some say about who gets funded? Why not just make it a bailout that gives individuals a note for so many health-insurance credits to distribute to providers, like food-stamps, only healthcare insurance stamps transfers? Then it will be like people are getting something instead of having something taken away, and the effect on the overall (real) economy will be the same.
The second question is completely unrelated. My best recommendation for a government effort for controlling costs is to build those terrible government policies around tiers based on per-case billings for such-and-such periods of time, or for so much monthly expense for medications, etc. That will force case-management to align costs with decisions and provide better feedback to physicians (albeit terrible) about the impacts of billings for medications, tests, etc, in terms of moving the case into the next, dreaded, policy tier. Within a tier, physicians will determine the best use of resources, and the best ways to avoid the next tier for any particular case, if possible. Groups of tests and procedures will be known, not because they provide high reimbursements, but because they can be used effectively without crossing into the next dreaded policy requirements for reporting/supervision/etc. Medicine and Law are like oil and water. This is one practical outline to use that terrible relationship effectively.
Posted by: MarkLeavenworth | June 24, 2009, 9:08 am 9:08 am
Second on controlling costs, the idea that people will somehow not leverage for healthcare is either rediculous, or there is some practical way to prevent it. It must be recognized that so many people going bankrupt due to healthcare expenses is not because the healthcare is ‘too expensive’, but because people will leverage whatever they can to extend life. I don’t see any solution for that, other than occasional bail-outs for the system through the voucher bailout process mentioned.
Posted by: MarkLeavenworth | June 24, 2009, 9:15 am 9:15 am
jhw539 at Jun 23, 2009 11:35:50 PM, you should have included the REST of my entry. Don’t make it sound like the alternative would make MY life better. A nation under this government’s control of health care would be a nightmare. THEY CREATED THE MONSTER. Now they want to put a new monster in place, and know people are too driven by gimmee and entitlement to even see the truth.
Posted by: Eyes Open | June 24, 2009, 9:33 am 9:33 am
“We view the current situation in Poland in the gravest of terms, particularly the increasing use of force against an unarmed population and violations of the basic civil rights of the Polish people… We’ve always been ready to do our share to assist Poland in overcoming its economic difficulties, but only if the Polish people are permitted to resolve their own problems free of internal coercion and outside intervention.”-Reagan Dec 17, 1981, 4 days after the imposition of martial law in Poland
“I think that the democratic process — free speech, the ability of people to peacefully dissent — all those are universal values and need to be respected. And whenever I see violence perpetrated on people who are peacefully dissenting, and whenever the American people see that, I think they’re, rightfully, troubled…And what I would say to those people who put so much hope and energy and optimism into the political process, I would say to them that the world is watching and inspired by their participation” Obama, June 15th 2009, 3 days after the announcement of the Iranian election ‘results’
Posted by: jhw539 | June 24, 2009, 9:41 am 9:41 am
Eyes Open:” Don’t make it sound like the alternative would make MY life better. A nation under this government’s control of health care would be a nightmare. THEY CREATED THE MONSTER.”
In what way did the government create the current health care system? By NOT regulating it? Our current system is the result of the free market, the only thing the government did was nothing.
“Now they want to put a new monster in place, and know people are too driven by gimmee and entitlement to even see the truth.”
The TRUTH is that every other first world nation spends less than half (median is about a third) what we spend on health care and receive equivalent benefits. Why is America’s government in your view uniquely incompetent? Frankly, America is the best nation mankind has ever seen- the most prosperous, powerful free nation ever- and that is because of our government not in spite of it. It’s the worst possible governmental system, except for all the others…
Posted by: jhw539 | June 24, 2009, 9:45 am 9:45 am
MarkLeavenworth:”Second on controlling costs, the idea that people will somehow not leverage for healthcare is either rediculous, or there is some practical way to prevent it. It must be recognized that so many people going bankrupt due to healthcare expenses is not because the healthcare is ‘too expensive’, but because people will leverage whatever they can to extend life. I don’t see any solution for that, other than occasional bail-outs for the system through the voucher bailout process mentioned.”
I’m not sure the exact context of this remark so this may be obvious, but nationalized healthcare that covers the conditions with inelastic demand – the life threatening conditions or major quality of life issues people will pay anything for – is the solution to this issue proven to work in all the other first world nations. There are a number of expensive operations where demand IS elastic. Some old men would prefer to use a cane than go to the expense and hospital time required for a new knee, or the 50 something who will give up tennis rather than pay and rehab from an elbow surgery.
The US is not dealing with a unique problem here. It has been faced and dealt with to varying degrees of success by all the other first world nations. We should learn from their successes and failures.
Posted by: jhw539 | June 24, 2009, 9:50 am 9:50 am
“Some old men would prefer to use a cane than go to the expense and hospital time required for a new knee, or the 50 something who will give up tennis rather than pay and rehab from an elbow surgery.”
Name them! How incredibly vacuous.
There must be a good 10 or 15 of these kinds of people.
Those receiving new hips almost universally state that they wonder why they waited so long. Under Obamacare they won’t have a choice. Over 57 and you don’t get a hip in Canada. Over 65 and you get no dialysis.
You’re way over your head when it comes to health care, and I would know.
Posted by: drjohn | June 24, 2009, 10:22 am 10:22 am
$2 trillion is spent every year on health care. Obama wants to pare that to under $1 trillion.
That means you get HALF the health care you get now.
Do the math.
Rationing. Fewer procedures. A lot of people die.
That’s it.
Posted by: drjohn | June 24, 2009, 10:25 am 10:25 am
“It has been faced and dealt with to varying degrees of success by all the other first world nations.”
So which one did Gibbs name as the country in which socialized medicine works better than our system?
Posted by: drjohn | June 24, 2009, 10:28 am 10:28 am
Posted by: Molon Labe | Jun 24, 2009 2:48:50 AM
Obama: “I won”
America: “We lost”
Posted by: drjohn | June 24, 2009, 10:31 am 10:31 am
What exactly is Sawyer doing? Competing for Gibbs’ job or Axelrod’s job?
ABC is now a handmaiden for Obama.
Great.
Posted by: drjohn | June 24, 2009, 10:33 am 10:33 am
jlw,
go past all the rhetoric for a while.
Let’s take a moment to look at the real implementation of this.
if some form of govt plan is eventually passed, it will at some point be just like any other insurance plan. There will be a schedule of premium costs Vs coverage.
In order to “control” costs, this plan will indeed have to set limits on what it will pay out for a doctor’s office visit, X-rays, ER visit, rehab visits,..etc.
Surely if it is to compete in the “open” market, it will have to offer something that one does not currently find in the market. (i.e. lower costs to the customer).
What will the various coverage levels of the govt plan be? Does anyone really believe that there will be only one premium/coverage option with this?
WHO will decide what the limits are of the lowest, most basic plan?
WHO will be setting these limits on treatment costs and determining the levels of the premiums?
WHO will be in charge of denying claims that are submitted and beyond what the plan covers?
Will employers have the option to dump the current health plans they supply to their employees in favor of the cheaper govt plan? If so, will the govt plan have equivalent levels of coverage to those plans currently available to employees?
What will the government do to hospitals, doctors and rehab facilities that continue to charge at or near today’s levels? Will there be more bailouts in order to support the infrastructure of the healthcare system as it attempts to remold itself based on smaller revenue intake?
These are questions that should be answered in full before America commits to the incredible amounts of money and the changes to the system in general. Simply passing some kind of overlord bill that allows for the creation of this plan behind closed doors after the fact Again, WHO would be doing this work?) will lead to a disaster down the road. These details need to be hammered out before a congressional vote. While this is a departure from the norm, for something this massive having the potential impact across the country in business and in the medical community, I for one would to know about before its voted on.
ALSO, we should know how this will be paid for. What other taxes/surcharges will be added or raised to fund all this.
Posted by: Mike_C | June 24, 2009, 10:44 am 10:44 am
===In exactly the same way Reagan voted present on the Solidarity protests ===
Don’t tell Lech Walesa that.
“When talking about Ronald Reagan, I have to be personal. We in Poland took him so personally. Why? Because we owe him our liberty. This can’t be said often enough by people who lived under oppression for half a century, until communism fell in 1989.”
“I often wondered why Ronald Reagan did this, taking the risks he did, in supporting us at Solidarity…”
I don’t think the people of Poland think Ronald Reagan voted present.
Posted by: Axey | June 24, 2009, 10:45 am 10:45 am
Ronald Reagan, Dec 14, 1981, one day after imposition of martial law in Poland, released excerpts from a private telephone conversation with Pope John Paul II
===
The President. “Your Holiness, I want you to know how deeply we feel about the situation in your homeland.”
“I look forward to the time when we can meet in person.”
“Our sympathies are with the people, not the government.”
====
Don’t pretend Obama is a Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan didn’t need a focus poll to do the right thing.
Posted by: Axey | June 24, 2009, 11:07 am 11:07 am
America: “We lost”
America has been saying that we are mostly happy with Obama so far, and also have clearly stated that we want a change from this horrible illness-for-profit healthcare system that we have now.
Posted by: Skip | June 24, 2009, 11:07 am 11:07 am
Republicans: “Obama must cut down the mightiest tree in Iran with…. a herring!”
I mean, really, what exactly is Obama supposed to do besides express sympathy for the victims and tell Iran to watch it!
At some point, you realize that the whole point of the GOP culture of complaint has NOTHING to do with common sense…. and everything to do with trying to make Obama bow down to their absurd, narcissistic demands.
Especially when you look at how Reagan ignored the Central American death squads… and only responded when they finally raped and murdered Americas. Or how the most recent president ignored the anti-democratic violence in Nigeria. Or, when you look at how Republicans STILL ignore the death squads running amok in Colombia.
This sudden “outrage” is phony beyond belief.
Posted by: borneo | June 24, 2009, 11:10 am 11:10 am
===Posted by: borneo | Jun 24, 2009 11:10:14 AM===
You quoted republicans saying “Obama must cut down the mightiest tree in Iran with…. a herring!” Could you tell me which republicans actually said that?
Posted by: Axey | June 24, 2009, 11:15 am 11:15 am
Selective outrage. That’s the only word for it.
When Bill Clinton cheats on his wife…. Impeach!
When Vitter, Ensign, or Craig do it… It’s personal.
When Obama smokes cigarettes…. he’s scum.
When gambling addict and moral blowhard Bill Bennett renounces smoking and gambling…. but does so secretly, it’s hard to stop an addiction.
When 2 men who have lived together for decades try to tie the knot… it’s destroys our families.
When conservative pastors and politicians do it… they go to therapy.
When we want government healthcare… it’s the end of democracy.
But when our elected officials enjoy lifetime government healthcare at taxpayer expense… it’s just compensation for their hard work.
Selective outrage. The only way to describe it.
Posted by: borneo | June 24, 2009, 11:17 am 11:17 am
Those on the left would certainly recognize selective outrage. Panties on the head. Outrage. Students shot in cold blood. Measured response.
Posted by: Axey | June 24, 2009, 11:26 am 11:26 am
Axey… Was it the “panties on the head”?
Or the torture and execution of POWs?
Thanks for proving my point.
Posted by: borneo | June 24, 2009, 11:36 am 11:36 am
It’s a line from a movie, Axey. A sarcastic reference to people who make incessant demands, not out of any desire to see them met, but out of a misplaced sense of self-importance.
In other words, the GOP will never be happy with anything Obama does or says…
So, it is pointless to even listen to them.
They only care about their own jobs.
Posted by: borneo | June 24, 2009, 11:40 am 11:40 am
Mike_C:”These are questions that should be answered in full before America commits to the incredible amounts of money and the changes to the system in general.”
So, before changing our current system that costs 200-300% more than every other first world nation’s approach per capita? And why isn’t our legislative process capable of doing this over the course of a full session of Congress?
The FACT is that every other first world nation has a system that costs at most half as much. Is our health care twice as good as every other first world nation? If not, why are we paying so much more? The only consistent difference is that we have no government option.
Posted by: jhw539 | June 24, 2009, 11:58 am 11:58 am
Axey:”===In exactly the same way Reagan voted present on the Solidarity protests ===
Don’t tell Lech Walesa that. ”
False equivalency. You are implying that Iranian protesters do not feel like Obama is supporting them. Oh yeah -and the Lech Walesa equivalent in the Iranian protests HATES the US; card carrying, flag burning, establishment man who hates the US.
Posted by: jhw539 | June 24, 2009, 11:59 am 11:59 am
drjohn:”
$2 trillion is spent every year on health care. Obama wants to pare that to under $1 trillion.
That means you get HALF the health care you get now.
Do the math.
Rationing. Fewer procedures. A lot of people die.
That’s it.”
Every other first world nation spends less than half as much per person for healthcare. Every other first world nation has equivalent or longer life spans. No more people die.
That’s DOCUMENTED REALITY.
drjohn:”Over 57 and you don’t get a hip in Canada. Over 65 and you get no dialysis.”
This is the problem with the health care debate. People are flat out making up lies to support their ideology. In reality? The MAJORITY of hip replacements in Canada go to people over 65. The reality is publicly reported:
“Older Canadians (age 65 and over) continue to make up the majority of joint replacement patients-representing 65% of hip replacement and 68% of knee replacement patients in 2004-2005.”
Not surprisingly, his dialysis claim is also a lie. At best it refers to a very specific specialized treatment that is offered at the same rates in the US as Canada to the elderly.
Please look things up folks. The debate should not be based on blatant lies.
jw….
drjohn has been repeating those lies about hip replacements and dialysis for months now.
When someone else pointed out his error, he just disappeared for a while.
Now he came back and is cutting and pasting the same old lies again.
I wouldn’t even bother messing with it. The insurance companies hired a big PR firm to cook up “horror stories” about health care. They don’t care if the stories are lies. They just don’t want to see their profits touched. Insurance is a good racket to be in. Competition is the last thing they want.
===False equivalency.===
No it isn’t. You said Reagan voted present. I presented evidence that he did not vote present. You were defending Obama for voting present. The false equivalency is your comparison of Obama to Reagan.
“So which one did Gibbs name as the country in which socialized medicine works better than our system?”
There are about a dozen first world nations in which their healthcare systems rank ahead of ours while spending half as much, giving universal care and they enjoy better economic growth and lower unemployment.
Posted by: Ryan C | June 24, 2009, 12:28 pm 12:28 pm
===Posted by: Ryan C | Jun 24, 2009 12:28:25 PM===
With so many, you should have no problem naming a few of them.
“Ronald Reagan didn’t need a focus poll to do the right thing.”
Ronald Reagan was barely aware of where he was.
Posted by: Ryan C | June 24, 2009, 12:30 pm 12:30 pm
You… keeping me honest?
After pretending that you thought that I was actually attributing a well-known movie quote to Republicans?
You said you knew that it was a quote. But first you pretended you didn’t. Then you try to suggest that I was trying to trick people into thinking the quote was an actual statement by Republicans.
Try keeping yourself honest.
===Ronald Reagan was barely aware of where he was.
Posted by: Ryan C | Jun 24, 2009 12:30:57 PM===
That’s sweet. But you had to resort to that to beat my argument so all’s good.
=== Then you try to suggest that I was trying to trick people into thinking the quote was an actual statement by Republicans.===
I wasn’t trying to suggest anything. I was making an actual statement. Quote me if you want to. I won’t question it.
“That’s sweet. But you had to resort to that to beat my argument so all’s good.”
That beat your argument?
And here I thought it was a throwaway line.
Posted by: Ryan C | June 24, 2009, 12:46 pm 12:46 pm
jhw539-
“but nationalized healthcare that covers the conditions with inelastic demand – the life threatening conditions or major quality of life issues people will pay anything for – is the solution to this issue proven to work in all the other first world nations.”
“The US is not dealing with a unique problem here. It has been faced and dealt with to varying degrees of success by all the other first world nations. We should learn from their successes and failures.”
——————–
jhw539- You make such neat classifications between ‘elastic demand’ and ‘inelastic demand’. Those economic models don’t even make it very far off of the chalk board into real world economics, much less in medicine. You think we should learn from other ‘first world’ nations? They’ve been exploiting the research dollars and innovations that our system has been producing for almost half a century now. Whose innovations will we look to exploit to maintain a truly inelastic system in a field that is the most critically and constantly changing by it’s own nature?
You and other pro-government orderlies should take up some long-term personal case studies, followed through to pronounced death, and see at what point what condition is life-threatening in an ‘inelastic’ kind way. I suppose AIDS would be automatically life-threatening, but surgery for chronic congestive heart failure would be elective?
jhw539 | Jun 24, 2009 9:45:13 AM “In what way did the government create the current health care system?”
Ted Kennedy authored the HMO Bill of 1973. He is Government, no? In 1978 he gushed over how well HMOs were doing, keeping costs down (U.S. Senate, Committee on Human Resources, Subcommittee on Health and Scientific Research, “Health Maintenance Organization Act Amendments of 1978,” March 3, 1978 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1978), pp. 1-3. )
. Fast forward to 2001… he pleads for MORE laws to STOP HMOs.
“It is time to end the abuses of managed care that victimize thousands of patients each day. It is time for doctors and nurses and patients to make medical decisions again, not insurance company accountants. The American people deserve prompt action, and we intend to see that they get it.” (Statement of Senator Edward M. Kennedy Regarding the Patients’ Bill of Rights, May 15, 2001.) Even though he was the midwife to the monster. Hilarious, that.
Research tends to trump blind party patriotism and greedy entitlement.
Have free government health care. It’s called Medicaid. Works really well. Just don’t force me into it. And don’t take MORE of my money in “fines” for disobedience.
Posted by: Eyes Open | June 24, 2009, 6:33 pm 6:33 pm
Email
Obama: 'Now Is the Time For Common Sense Action' 
Romney Takes Aim at Conservatives
Oh please, private companies change insurance plans without any impetuous from the government. Only a fool the size of the cliche’ UAW worker a couple months ago thinks that businesses are going to be able to continue providing the current insurance benefits, eating double digit percentage cost increases annually.
Trying to whip up horror at the prospect of the government providing a more attractive plan such that people will want to switch to it is a bit of stretch. If a private employer forces their employees to a government plan AND it is inferior, that private employer faces the same competitive loss in the employment market as if they decided to drop healthcare altogether.
Posted by: jhw539 | June 23, 2009, 11:08 pm 11:08 pm
Yeah, all the companies will go Walmart … expecting the gov’t to provide health care.
My own company has changed insurance three times in less than two years, each time going to something more oppressive and controlling. This time around, my DEDUCTIBLE is $4000. What sense is there in paying for something I can’t use? This is the monster created by the government years ago when they midwifed HMOs. I’m certainly not jumping (as people did with the promise of cheap rates of HMOs) for a gov’t plan either.
But ultimately, none of us will have any choice. He’s planning penalties for those of us who refuse. Educate yourselves on the WHOLE plan.
Posted by: Eyes Open | June 23, 2009, 11:22 pm 11:22 pm
Eyes Open:”My own company has changed insurance three times in less than two years, each time going to something more oppressive and controlling. This time around, my DEDUCTIBLE is $4000. ”
This is a good argument for a government plan. No other first world nation has the problem you’ve experienced, and they have equivalent levels of care while spending one half to one third what Americans spend. Those are the documented facts that support what your anecdotal experience illustrates: The current system is broken and getting worse.
Posted by: jhw539 | June 23, 2009, 11:35 pm 11:35 pm
jhw539- Maybe your father was a communist, or something (no disrespect intended). There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding with the role of a government that has the power to mint its own currency. The money is the government’s carrot, for a stick which is extended in three parts: through ‘free’ disbursments, through qualification through compliance with policy, and through capital/note holder transactions. The remainder is free-market transactions legal or illegal. The notion that the government can both print the currency as well as provide a service for the currency is rediculous and the essential premise of communist idealogues.
Posted by: MarkLeavenworth | June 24, 2009, 12:15 am 12:15 am
In case you are interested in real solutions, healthcare is too complex for the government to manage, the human organism being far more complex than any state. But if the objective is to limit the funds flowing into healthcare, which cannot be done effectively without limiting services (since the fact is, that government cannot disperse funds more efficiently than healthcare professionals, regardless of who is doing the analysis), then the government has general policy only at its disposal. Control of funds specifically leads to corruption, but more policy creates inefficiency and avoidance. (Sorry to government officials, but the entire system was designed against you, to secure liberty for the people.) Still, if you are courageous, you can use these facts to good effect, placing policy as a barrior and something to be avoided, and at such limits as you wish should not be crossed, that is to say, when a patient’s billings are such-and-such an amount, then a new tier of policy comes into play, etc. The limits you can create in such a general way through cost initiated tiers of national policy are almost without number.
Posted by: MarkLeavenworth | June 24, 2009, 12:37 am 12:37 am
The illusion of European success with social services has been built on the post WWII dominance of the dollar, combined with all the various friendly transactions that have provided europe with a net inflow of goods. We are now at the peak of a remake of that arrangement with China, where a net inflow of goods, in this case nice plastic things with cute themes and colors, give us the illusion that our domestic fundamentals are sound. How rediculous if we look at the huge WWII SKF enterprise buildings as supporting their own weight in healthcare services while our military dumped cheap labor, cheap raw materials and cheap oil onto their shores on the back of the debt-ladden dollar. It’s like the hare looking back at the start of the race to prove how well he slept, and to make the case that he should now walk slowly like the tourtise, which has passed him.
Posted by: MarkLeavenworth | June 24, 2009, 1:03 am 1:03 am
Why the “Infomercial” format for the Health Care town hall? I guess “the fairness doctrine” is not going to happen here, but you could at least involve some serious journalists in this event. You guys really need to bring Ted Kopple back, whatever it might cost. But at least involve Tapper, Stossel, or someone able cut through the bull and not back down until they get a solid answer. Stephanopoulos is brilliant, but is so in the tank for his “big O” that he can’t see straight! But using Diane Sawyer to host this infomercial is just sad! What happened to the hard-hitting ABC News I grew up with???
Posted by: Anne Obomanation | June 24, 2009, 1:03 am 1:03 am
MarkLeavenworth, IRS is pretty regular in dispersing fund and pretty well managed, so, I don’t think fund disbursement will be any issue for govt plans. I fear more corruption from public with false claims than government official themselves. From the payor POV, I think both non-profit and profit healthcare organization like Blueshield and Kaiser will face big competition. Today, nobody knows or question why healthcare cost is so high and with the government coming into picture, they feel threatened as these companies will loose their leverage. From the provider side, I don’t see any issue as long as Govt offer PPO and HMO and as long as every individual who take govt plan pays for the plan.
Posted by: Tim | June 24, 2009, 1:14 am 1:14 am
Tim- I’m still amazed at how many foreign accents enter these conversations on the government side.
Posted by: MarkLeavenworth | June 24, 2009, 1:18 am 1:18 am
It will be interesting to see what government actually puts forward as a plan, rather than what people on this blog are currently guessing about and condemning.
Posted by: danita | June 24, 2009, 1:37 am 1:37 am
MarkLeavenworth, This is just a govt heathcare plan and you have an option to buy the private one if you do not like it. Nobody is forcing it on you. If no one buys govt plan, they will withdraw it. But, I would like to give an opportunity. Also, sorry for not getting your foreign related context, struggling to understand how govt heathcare is related foreigner.
Posted by: Tim | June 24, 2009, 1:41 am 1:41 am
danita, exactly that is my point.
Posted by: Tim | June 24, 2009, 1:42 am 1:42 am
Hey, I have an idea. Why don’t you foreigners just come over here and take over everything? Then we won’t ever have to work on anything ever again!
Posted by: MarkLeavenworth | June 24, 2009, 2:01 am 2:01 am
Or maybe it’s better said, ‘misery enjoys company’.
Posted by: MarkLeavenworth | June 24, 2009, 2:03 am 2:03 am
And don’t worry, Danita, I’m sure the plan will only be as much towards your ideal of total government control as can pass the eyes and stomach of the American public.
Posted by: MarkLeavenworth | June 24, 2009, 2:06 am 2:06 am
You can’t get it all done in one bill.
Posted by: MarkLeavenworth | June 24, 2009, 2:08 am 2:08 am
Obama to USA: “I won”
Obama to protesters: “You lost”
Posted by: Molon Labe | June 24, 2009, 2:48 am 2:48 am
I for one do not protest the intentions of the President. I honestly believe he would agree that healthcare is too complicated for government to make even negligible improvements through direct management if he knew the reasons.
Posted by: MarkLeavenworth | June 24, 2009, 3:04 am 3:04 am
This is vintage Obama and it’s exactly what he did in the IL Senate. He voted “present” on Iran until it was safe to take a tough stance.
He is a coward. He is far more interested in his own political safety than he is in principle.
Posted by: drjohn | June 24, 2009, 7:31 am 7:31 am
Tim wrote, in response to incredibly well-argued and well-written statements by MarkLeavenworth, ” Nobody is forcing it on you. If no one buys govt plan, they will withdraw it.”
Tim, you miss the point entirely. As Jake pointed to in his question yesterday, the government plan will not be required to make a profit and can even sustain losses. It is rather like when WalMart comes into a small town and runs the local businesses out of business. Private insurance companies will be at a massive disadvantage when they must compete against a government entity. FOr openers, the government will not have to be profitable. But even more importantly, the government is going to be making the rules, and then you expect those rules not to advantage the government and not to make it harder for the private companies to have a level playing field on which to compete?
So while the government will say people have a choice, many businesses will will vote with their feet, leaving workers in the public plan whether that is their preference or not. We will move inexorably toward a single-payer plan even if it is not in the original bill, if that bill contains a public option.
Posted by: moderate | June 24, 2009, 8:04 am 8:04 am
drjohn:”He voted “present” on Iran until it was safe to take a tough stance.”
In exactly the same way Reagan voted present on the Solidarity protests (look up his actual statements – it looks like Obama cribbed from them) or Bush Sr masterfully voted present on the coup that brought down the USSR in 1989.
The proper response to internal popular unrest in an enemy is well known and Obama followed it to the T, although he surely wished he could have gone off and racked up ‘sounding tough’ soundbites on TV like the irresponsible Republicans did.
Posted by: jhw539 | June 24, 2009, 8:11 am 8:11 am
And you know, the hypocricy and injustice of demanding that young students adhere strictly to the rule of law and lawful order while not condemning, even tacitly supporting, plane-clothes quasi-para-military mature civilians who go around bashing heads and shooting people in the street is really lacking in a unified and disciplined approach to lawful order and oneness in the truth.
Posted by: MarkLeavenworth | June 24, 2009, 8:13 am 8:13 am
“Poles fought for their freedom for so many years that they hold in special esteem those who backed them in their struggle. Support was the test of friendship. President Reagan was such a friend. His policy of aiding democratic movements in Central and Eastern Europe in the dark days of the Cold War meant a lot to us. We knew he believed in a few simple principles such as human rights, democracy and civil society. He was someone who was convinced that the citizen is not for the state, but vice-versa, and that freedom is an innate right.
I often wondered why Ronald Reagan did this, taking the risks he did, in supporting us at Solidarity, as well as dissident movements in other countries behind the Iron Curtain, while pushing a defense buildup that pushed the Soviet economy over the brink. Let’s remember that it was a time of recession in the U.S. and a time when the American public was more interested in their own domestic affairs. It took a leader with a vision to convince them that there are greater things worth fighting for. Did he seek any profit in such a policy? Though our freedom movements were in line with the foreign policy of the United States, I doubt it.”
Lech Valesa, 2004
Posted by: drjohn | June 24, 2009, 8:22 am 8:22 am
Sarkozy and Merkel took the lead on this. Obama hid under Michelle’s skirt and wached to see where all the popular kids went.
Only then did he take a tough stance.
It is exactly as he did in IL.
Posted by: drjohn | June 24, 2009, 8:24 am 8:24 am
This so called illegal Presidente is a wimp,he is afraid of his own shadow.I fear the our Beautiful Country with him in the white house.I say God please help us we need you now more the Obama who is trying to take your place.
Posted by: Joeray | June 24, 2009, 9:01 am 9:01 am
From ABC interview with the president: “We have not drawn lines in the sand, other than that reform has to control costs and that it has to provide relief to people who don’t have health insurance or are under-insured”
The basic scheme sounds like the government is willing to make a bailout for the healthcare insurance industry through mandating (massive income tax increase) insurance, under the assumption that there is some way to guarantee that once more funds are forced into the system, and many more people made able to use the system in a more comprehensive way, that the costs will somehow not continue to expand again beyond the point that they can be paid.
The first, oppressive, notion on funding a bailout through a massive income tax hike is supposed to give individuals some say about who gets funded? Why not just make it a bailout that gives individuals a note for so many health-insurance credits to distribute to providers, like food-stamps, only healthcare insurance stamps transfers? Then it will be like people are getting something instead of having something taken away, and the effect on the overall (real) economy will be the same.
The second question is completely unrelated. My best recommendation for a government effort for controlling costs is to build those terrible government policies around tiers based on per-case billings for such-and-such periods of time, or for so much monthly expense for medications, etc. That will force case-management to align costs with decisions and provide better feedback to physicians (albeit terrible) about the impacts of billings for medications, tests, etc, in terms of moving the case into the next, dreaded, policy tier. Within a tier, physicians will determine the best use of resources, and the best ways to avoid the next tier for any particular case, if possible. Groups of tests and procedures will be known, not because they provide high reimbursements, but because they can be used effectively without crossing into the next dreaded policy requirements for reporting/supervision/etc. Medicine and Law are like oil and water. This is one practical outline to use that terrible relationship effectively.
Posted by: MarkLeavenworth | June 24, 2009, 9:08 am 9:08 am
Second on controlling costs, the idea that people will somehow not leverage for healthcare is either rediculous, or there is some practical way to prevent it. It must be recognized that so many people going bankrupt due to healthcare expenses is not because the healthcare is ‘too expensive’, but because people will leverage whatever they can to extend life. I don’t see any solution for that, other than occasional bail-outs for the system through the voucher bailout process mentioned.
Posted by: MarkLeavenworth | June 24, 2009, 9:15 am 9:15 am
jhw539 at Jun 23, 2009 11:35:50 PM, you should have included the REST of my entry. Don’t make it sound like the alternative would make MY life better. A nation under this government’s control of health care would be a nightmare. THEY CREATED THE MONSTER. Now they want to put a new monster in place, and know people are too driven by gimmee and entitlement to even see the truth.
Posted by: Eyes Open | June 24, 2009, 9:33 am 9:33 am
“We view the current situation in Poland in the gravest of terms, particularly the increasing use of force against an unarmed population and violations of the basic civil rights of the Polish people… We’ve always been ready to do our share to assist Poland in overcoming its economic difficulties, but only if the Polish people are permitted to resolve their own problems free of internal coercion and outside intervention.”-Reagan Dec 17, 1981, 4 days after the imposition of martial law in Poland
“I think that the democratic process — free speech, the ability of people to peacefully dissent — all those are universal values and need to be respected. And whenever I see violence perpetrated on people who are peacefully dissenting, and whenever the American people see that, I think they’re, rightfully, troubled…And what I would say to those people who put so much hope and energy and optimism into the political process, I would say to them that the world is watching and inspired by their participation” Obama, June 15th 2009, 3 days after the announcement of the Iranian election ‘results’
Posted by: jhw539 | June 24, 2009, 9:41 am 9:41 am
Eyes Open:” Don’t make it sound like the alternative would make MY life better. A nation under this government’s control of health care would be a nightmare. THEY CREATED THE MONSTER.”
In what way did the government create the current health care system? By NOT regulating it? Our current system is the result of the free market, the only thing the government did was nothing.
“Now they want to put a new monster in place, and know people are too driven by gimmee and entitlement to even see the truth.”
The TRUTH is that every other first world nation spends less than half (median is about a third) what we spend on health care and receive equivalent benefits. Why is America’s government in your view uniquely incompetent? Frankly, America is the best nation mankind has ever seen- the most prosperous, powerful free nation ever- and that is because of our government not in spite of it. It’s the worst possible governmental system, except for all the others…
Posted by: jhw539 | June 24, 2009, 9:45 am 9:45 am
MarkLeavenworth:”Second on controlling costs, the idea that people will somehow not leverage for healthcare is either rediculous, or there is some practical way to prevent it. It must be recognized that so many people going bankrupt due to healthcare expenses is not because the healthcare is ‘too expensive’, but because people will leverage whatever they can to extend life. I don’t see any solution for that, other than occasional bail-outs for the system through the voucher bailout process mentioned.”
I’m not sure the exact context of this remark so this may be obvious, but nationalized healthcare that covers the conditions with inelastic demand – the life threatening conditions or major quality of life issues people will pay anything for – is the solution to this issue proven to work in all the other first world nations. There are a number of expensive operations where demand IS elastic. Some old men would prefer to use a cane than go to the expense and hospital time required for a new knee, or the 50 something who will give up tennis rather than pay and rehab from an elbow surgery.
The US is not dealing with a unique problem here. It has been faced and dealt with to varying degrees of success by all the other first world nations. We should learn from their successes and failures.
Posted by: jhw539 | June 24, 2009, 9:50 am 9:50 am
“Some old men would prefer to use a cane than go to the expense and hospital time required for a new knee, or the 50 something who will give up tennis rather than pay and rehab from an elbow surgery.”
Name them! How incredibly vacuous.
There must be a good 10 or 15 of these kinds of people.
Those receiving new hips almost universally state that they wonder why they waited so long. Under Obamacare they won’t have a choice. Over 57 and you don’t get a hip in Canada. Over 65 and you get no dialysis.
You’re way over your head when it comes to health care, and I would know.
Posted by: drjohn | June 24, 2009, 10:22 am 10:22 am
$2 trillion is spent every year on health care. Obama wants to pare that to under $1 trillion.
That means you get HALF the health care you get now.
Do the math.
Rationing. Fewer procedures. A lot of people die.
That’s it.
Posted by: drjohn | June 24, 2009, 10:25 am 10:25 am
“It has been faced and dealt with to varying degrees of success by all the other first world nations.”
So which one did Gibbs name as the country in which socialized medicine works better than our system?
Posted by: drjohn | June 24, 2009, 10:28 am 10:28 am
Posted by: Molon Labe | Jun 24, 2009 2:48:50 AM
Obama: “I won”
America: “We lost”
Posted by: drjohn | June 24, 2009, 10:31 am 10:31 am
What exactly is Sawyer doing? Competing for Gibbs’ job or Axelrod’s job?
ABC is now a handmaiden for Obama.
Great.
Posted by: drjohn | June 24, 2009, 10:33 am 10:33 am
jlw,
go past all the rhetoric for a while.
Let’s take a moment to look at the real implementation of this.
if some form of govt plan is eventually passed, it will at some point be just like any other insurance plan. There will be a schedule of premium costs Vs coverage.
In order to “control” costs, this plan will indeed have to set limits on what it will pay out for a doctor’s office visit, X-rays, ER visit, rehab visits,..etc.
Surely if it is to compete in the “open” market, it will have to offer something that one does not currently find in the market. (i.e. lower costs to the customer).
What will the various coverage levels of the govt plan be? Does anyone really believe that there will be only one premium/coverage option with this?
WHO will decide what the limits are of the lowest, most basic plan?
WHO will be setting these limits on treatment costs and determining the levels of the premiums?
WHO will be in charge of denying claims that are submitted and beyond what the plan covers?
Will employers have the option to dump the current health plans they supply to their employees in favor of the cheaper govt plan? If so, will the govt plan have equivalent levels of coverage to those plans currently available to employees?
What will the government do to hospitals, doctors and rehab facilities that continue to charge at or near today’s levels? Will there be more bailouts in order to support the infrastructure of the healthcare system as it attempts to remold itself based on smaller revenue intake?
These are questions that should be answered in full before America commits to the incredible amounts of money and the changes to the system in general. Simply passing some kind of overlord bill that allows for the creation of this plan behind closed doors after the fact Again, WHO would be doing this work?) will lead to a disaster down the road. These details need to be hammered out before a congressional vote. While this is a departure from the norm, for something this massive having the potential impact across the country in business and in the medical community, I for one would to know about before its voted on.
ALSO, we should know how this will be paid for. What other taxes/surcharges will be added or raised to fund all this.
Posted by: Mike_C | June 24, 2009, 10:44 am 10:44 am
===In exactly the same way Reagan voted present on the Solidarity protests ===
Don’t tell Lech Walesa that.
“When talking about Ronald Reagan, I have to be personal. We in Poland took him so personally. Why? Because we owe him our liberty. This can’t be said often enough by people who lived under oppression for half a century, until communism fell in 1989.”
“I often wondered why Ronald Reagan did this, taking the risks he did, in supporting us at Solidarity…”
I don’t think the people of Poland think Ronald Reagan voted present.
Posted by: Axey | June 24, 2009, 10:45 am 10:45 am
Ronald Reagan, Dec 14, 1981, one day after imposition of martial law in Poland, released excerpts from a private telephone conversation with Pope John Paul II
===
The President. “Your Holiness, I want you to know how deeply we feel about the situation in your homeland.”
“I look forward to the time when we can meet in person.”
“Our sympathies are with the people, not the government.”
====
Don’t pretend Obama is a Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan didn’t need a focus poll to do the right thing.
Posted by: Axey | June 24, 2009, 11:07 am 11:07 am
America: “We lost”
America has been saying that we are mostly happy with Obama so far, and also have clearly stated that we want a change from this horrible illness-for-profit healthcare system that we have now.
Posted by: Skip | June 24, 2009, 11:07 am 11:07 am
Republicans: “Obama must cut down the mightiest tree in Iran with…. a herring!”
I mean, really, what exactly is Obama supposed to do besides express sympathy for the victims and tell Iran to watch it!
At some point, you realize that the whole point of the GOP culture of complaint has NOTHING to do with common sense…. and everything to do with trying to make Obama bow down to their absurd, narcissistic demands.
Especially when you look at how Reagan ignored the Central American death squads… and only responded when they finally raped and murdered Americas. Or how the most recent president ignored the anti-democratic violence in Nigeria. Or, when you look at how Republicans STILL ignore the death squads running amok in Colombia.
This sudden “outrage” is phony beyond belief.
Posted by: borneo | June 24, 2009, 11:10 am 11:10 am
===Posted by: borneo | Jun 24, 2009 11:10:14 AM===
You quoted republicans saying “Obama must cut down the mightiest tree in Iran with…. a herring!” Could you tell me which republicans actually said that?
Posted by: Axey | June 24, 2009, 11:15 am 11:15 am
Selective outrage. That’s the only word for it.
When Bill Clinton cheats on his wife…. Impeach!
When Vitter, Ensign, or Craig do it… It’s personal.
When Obama smokes cigarettes…. he’s scum.
When gambling addict and moral blowhard Bill Bennett renounces smoking and gambling…. but does so secretly, it’s hard to stop an addiction.
When 2 men who have lived together for decades try to tie the knot… it’s destroys our families.
When conservative pastors and politicians do it… they go to therapy.
When we want government healthcare… it’s the end of democracy.
But when our elected officials enjoy lifetime government healthcare at taxpayer expense… it’s just compensation for their hard work.
Selective outrage. The only way to describe it.
Posted by: borneo | June 24, 2009, 11:17 am 11:17 am
Those on the left would certainly recognize selective outrage. Panties on the head. Outrage. Students shot in cold blood. Measured response.
Posted by: Axey | June 24, 2009, 11:26 am 11:26 am
Axey… Was it the “panties on the head”?
Or the torture and execution of POWs?
Thanks for proving my point.
Posted by: borneo | June 24, 2009, 11:36 am 11:36 am
It’s a line from a movie, Axey. A sarcastic reference to people who make incessant demands, not out of any desire to see them met, but out of a misplaced sense of self-importance.
In other words, the GOP will never be happy with anything Obama does or says…
So, it is pointless to even listen to them.
They only care about their own jobs.
Posted by: borneo | June 24, 2009, 11:40 am 11:40 am
Mike_C:”These are questions that should be answered in full before America commits to the incredible amounts of money and the changes to the system in general.”
So, before changing our current system that costs 200-300% more than every other first world nation’s approach per capita? And why isn’t our legislative process capable of doing this over the course of a full session of Congress?
The FACT is that every other first world nation has a system that costs at most half as much. Is our health care twice as good as every other first world nation? If not, why are we paying so much more? The only consistent difference is that we have no government option.
Posted by: jhw539 | June 24, 2009, 11:58 am 11:58 am
Axey:”===In exactly the same way Reagan voted present on the Solidarity protests ===
Don’t tell Lech Walesa that. ”
False equivalency. You are implying that Iranian protesters do not feel like Obama is supporting them. Oh yeah -and the Lech Walesa equivalent in the Iranian protests HATES the US; card carrying, flag burning, establishment man who hates the US.
Posted by: jhw539 | June 24, 2009, 11:59 am 11:59 am
drjohn:”
$2 trillion is spent every year on health care. Obama wants to pare that to under $1 trillion.
That means you get HALF the health care you get now.
Do the math.
Rationing. Fewer procedures. A lot of people die.
That’s it.”
Every other first world nation spends less than half as much per person for healthcare. Every other first world nation has equivalent or longer life spans. No more people die.
That’s DOCUMENTED REALITY.
Posted by: jhw539 | June 24, 2009, 12:01 pm 12:01 pm
drjohn:”Over 57 and you don’t get a hip in Canada. Over 65 and you get no dialysis.”
This is the problem with the health care debate. People are flat out making up lies to support their ideology. In reality? The MAJORITY of hip replacements in Canada go to people over 65. The reality is publicly reported:
“Older Canadians (age 65 and over) continue to make up the majority of joint replacement patients-representing 65% of hip replacement and 68% of knee replacement patients in 2004-2005.”
Not surprisingly, his dialysis claim is also a lie. At best it refers to a very specific specialized treatment that is offered at the same rates in the US as Canada to the elderly.
Please look things up folks. The debate should not be based on blatant lies.
Posted by: jhw539 | June 24, 2009, 12:09 pm 12:09 pm
jw….
drjohn has been repeating those lies about hip replacements and dialysis for months now.
When someone else pointed out his error, he just disappeared for a while.
Now he came back and is cutting and pasting the same old lies again.
I wouldn’t even bother messing with it. The insurance companies hired a big PR firm to cook up “horror stories” about health care. They don’t care if the stories are lies. They just don’t want to see their profits touched. Insurance is a good racket to be in. Competition is the last thing they want.
Posted by: borneo | June 24, 2009, 12:15 pm 12:15 pm
===False equivalency.===
No it isn’t. You said Reagan voted present. I presented evidence that he did not vote present. You were defending Obama for voting present. The false equivalency is your comparison of Obama to Reagan.
Posted by: Axey | June 24, 2009, 12:20 pm 12:20 pm
===It’s a line from a movie, Axey.===
I get it. You quoted republicans when actually no republicans said it. Makes perfect sense to someone, I guess.
Posted by: Axey | June 24, 2009, 12:21 pm 12:21 pm
Not in those words… but they might as well.
Sorry to confuse you.
Posted by: borneo | June 24, 2009, 12:25 pm 12:25 pm
===Sorry to confuse you.===
I’m not confused. Just keeping you honest.
Posted by: Axey | June 24, 2009, 12:27 pm 12:27 pm
“So which one did Gibbs name as the country in which socialized medicine works better than our system?”
There are about a dozen first world nations in which their healthcare systems rank ahead of ours while spending half as much, giving universal care and they enjoy better economic growth and lower unemployment.
Posted by: Ryan C | June 24, 2009, 12:28 pm 12:28 pm
===Posted by: Ryan C | Jun 24, 2009 12:28:25 PM===
With so many, you should have no problem naming a few of them.
Posted by: Axey | June 24, 2009, 12:29 pm 12:29 pm
“Ronald Reagan didn’t need a focus poll to do the right thing.”
Ronald Reagan was barely aware of where he was.
Posted by: Ryan C | June 24, 2009, 12:30 pm 12:30 pm
You… keeping me honest?
After pretending that you thought that I was actually attributing a well-known movie quote to Republicans?
You said you knew that it was a quote. But first you pretended you didn’t. Then you try to suggest that I was trying to trick people into thinking the quote was an actual statement by Republicans.
Try keeping yourself honest.
Posted by: borneo | June 24, 2009, 12:31 pm 12:31 pm
===Ronald Reagan was barely aware of where he was.
Posted by: Ryan C | Jun 24, 2009 12:30:57 PM===
That’s sweet. But you had to resort to that to beat my argument so all’s good.
Posted by: Axey | June 24, 2009, 12:39 pm 12:39 pm
=== Then you try to suggest that I was trying to trick people into thinking the quote was an actual statement by Republicans.===
I wasn’t trying to suggest anything. I was making an actual statement. Quote me if you want to. I won’t question it.
Posted by: Axey | June 24, 2009, 12:41 pm 12:41 pm
“That’s sweet. But you had to resort to that to beat my argument so all’s good.”
That beat your argument?
And here I thought it was a throwaway line.
Posted by: Ryan C | June 24, 2009, 12:46 pm 12:46 pm
jhw539-
“but nationalized healthcare that covers the conditions with inelastic demand – the life threatening conditions or major quality of life issues people will pay anything for – is the solution to this issue proven to work in all the other first world nations.”
“The US is not dealing with a unique problem here. It has been faced and dealt with to varying degrees of success by all the other first world nations. We should learn from their successes and failures.”
——————–
jhw539- You make such neat classifications between ‘elastic demand’ and ‘inelastic demand’. Those economic models don’t even make it very far off of the chalk board into real world economics, much less in medicine. You think we should learn from other ‘first world’ nations? They’ve been exploiting the research dollars and innovations that our system has been producing for almost half a century now. Whose innovations will we look to exploit to maintain a truly inelastic system in a field that is the most critically and constantly changing by it’s own nature?
Posted by: MarkLeavenworth | June 24, 2009, 2:21 pm 2:21 pm
You and other pro-government orderlies should take up some long-term personal case studies, followed through to pronounced death, and see at what point what condition is life-threatening in an ‘inelastic’ kind way. I suppose AIDS would be automatically life-threatening, but surgery for chronic congestive heart failure would be elective?
Posted by: MarkLeavenworth | June 24, 2009, 2:25 pm 2:25 pm
jhw539 | Jun 24, 2009 9:45:13 AM “In what way did the government create the current health care system?”
Ted Kennedy authored the HMO Bill of 1973. He is Government, no? In 1978 he gushed over how well HMOs were doing, keeping costs down (U.S. Senate, Committee on Human Resources, Subcommittee on Health and Scientific Research, “Health Maintenance Organization Act Amendments of 1978,” March 3, 1978 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1978), pp. 1-3. )
. Fast forward to 2001… he pleads for MORE laws to STOP HMOs.
“It is time to end the abuses of managed care that victimize thousands of patients each day. It is time for doctors and nurses and patients to make medical decisions again, not insurance company accountants. The American people deserve prompt action, and we intend to see that they get it.” (Statement of Senator Edward M. Kennedy Regarding the Patients’ Bill of Rights, May 15, 2001.) Even though he was the midwife to the monster. Hilarious, that.
Research tends to trump blind party patriotism and greedy entitlement.
Have free government health care. It’s called Medicaid. Works really well. Just don’t force me into it. And don’t take MORE of my money in “fines” for disobedience.
Posted by: Eyes Open | June 24, 2009, 6:33 pm 6:33 pm