-
Website
http://themoderatevoice.com/ -
Original page
http://themoderatevoice.com/45130/obamas-health-care-reform-will-decimate-our-population/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
For instance: I foresee an enormous boom in specialized "knee cushions", so that grovelling ill persons can at least kneel in comfort in front of the death panel overlords. (Perhaps a special size for prostration as well?)
And how about new Halloween costumes hitting the racks in late September? Along with the standard fare (Nixon masks, skeletons, etc), one might expect some ghoulish "death panel" robes?
Another possibility that pops into my mind here -- specialized restraints to transport pregnant women to their abortion appointments. Why... that alone might just kickstart our industrial base again!
Those are just off the top of my head, of course. No doubt a whole host of other successful businesses will grow from the new, Marxist-Nazi plans (whatever the heck they actually are).
You forgot to mention that Obama wants to take away people's birthdays too.
I know TMV is devoted to debating both sides of issues, but I have never understood how those opposing reform could look at the current smear campaign and not second guess themselves. It's sort of like arguing against affirmative action and finding that everybody else on your side is wearing hoods.
Thanks. You are probably right that people believe that Obama wants to take away their birthdays, too---and many other things.
I just wanted to foucs this one on health care.
So here is this small group of academic professionals with reams of empirical data and explanations that seem to be much more accurate than anyone else, and they are way outnumbered by complete nutcases while trying to get the message out. So instead we just hobble along status quo and don't get any real reforms and the problems are getting worse.
CStanley, could it be possible that the proreform side are more likely to believe that we really, really need reform because we have spent the last few decades actually paying attention to what health care costs our own families? This is what always gets me about this debate: health care is something that most people actually deal with on a regular basis. How can people not notice that their out-of-pocket costs have gone up by 400% in the last decade (those are my personal premium increases)? Do we have some sort of collective amnesia about this? I'm one of the lucky ones with awesome health insurance, mostly paid for by my company, but I still can look at the invoices I get sent after a major procedure. $20,000 for a broken arm? That's not including the months of physical therapy. I remember seeing that number, giving a quick prayer of thanks that I have insurance, while at the same time thinking about those without the options I have.
I guess that rambled a bit, but my point is: most people who have been sick or injured in the last year understand the value of health insurance. Those who have been adults for 20 years might have to strain their brains to remember how the costs have ballooned, but it wasn't *that* long ago. Why would you think that those of us who take the time to do the math about our personal health care costs are merely the victims of lefty fearmongering?
I do tend to agree with your concern about rushing through something that isn't good, but that is an entirely separate issue from the belief -- via personal experience and not fearmongering -- that the problem is pretty desperate.
"too many people who are driven toward emotional reactions tend to ignore the real analysis of the proposal and to believe the strawman argument that those who don't agree with this reform plan are 'anti-reform.'"
There is no proposal out there for your "real analysis." In the mean time, lot's of people are whipped up into a political froth because of the utter BS being served. So why do you suppose the private health industry has pushed so hard to fabricate completely incendiary rhetoric to scare people?
NO ONE on the private insurance side is interested in rational debate. If they were truly working in good faith, where are the public discussions of their positions? What we do see from them is the drivel as seen above. The problem I have is not with your rational approach, but with the total systematic fear tactics coldly being propagated in lieu of rational debate.
As I said earlier, association should make one at least reconsider one's position. Are you pro reform? Then consider that private health doesn't want to have the very rational discussion you favor. Why would that be?
"considering how many corporate interests have been promoting the Obama/Dem Congressional healthcare reform plans. "
Bribing blue dogs is not nonsense, nor is it reform.
I suggest you're flat wrong on this. Maddow has had a number of segments tracing just how industry consultants have been directly linked to the current unrest at town hall meetings. Here's a link to one of her expose's.
http://www.appletreeblog.com/?p=6578
I suggest you listen to this before you call it nonsense. Sorry, CS, but the guys on your side all have hoods....
Really? You really have to explain how the linkage demonstrated in the piece is "slanted." You may not like her tone, but the links can and have been verified.
You can deny all you want, but I would hope your celebrated objective analysis would win out.
Read my comment again- what I said was that I was unconvinced by her one sided argument, and then I added:
" Let me know when you've looked at the other side, all of the astroturfing by unions and the industries that have been bought off to support this proposal (like the pharm companies who are giving money for ads.)"
To which you replied something about the Blue Dogs being bought off, but what I was referring to is the degree of industry support for the Obama/Pelosi version of reform. You are aware, aren't you, that the administration got the pharmaceutical industry to put up millions in advertising money, apparently as quid pro quo for dropping the ability to negotiate drug prices?
My point is that there aren't any clean hands with regard to backroom dealings and lobbying here. I think that the majority of healthcare industry money probably is on the side of blocking the Dem reforms, but then on the Dem sides there are tons of lobbyists and astroturfers representing unions and other special interests. One particularly repugnant thing about the union support for the current plans is that they're preventing any consideration of levelling the tax playing field on employer based plans, because the unions have fought for gold plated insurance plans from their employers and they refuse to allow taxation which would take away from those benefits. I say that's repugnant because I think that one step of starting to dissassociate health insurance from employment would go farther than just about anything else in actually reforming our system and reinstating some price competition.
And I've written many posts saying why I don't think the reform will work and how everyone has expectations that are unrealistic and will regret the current path that they are going down. But there is a fundamental difference between that (basically inaccurate accounting measures) and the idea that the government has a conspiracy to kill people or at least that the streets will be full of dying people that can't get treatment.
I have a problem with false equivalencies, and thus only looking at amount. If by "more honest" you mean completely accurate, then yeah the proreform side isn't, but at least the vast majority of arguments have a rational basis that can be addressed. When I've heard friend and family say how it's a shame that the bill isn't getting passed I point to the CBO report and anecdotes and their opinion is swayed. Deaths panels can't be addressed -- and that's the point, to just create noise.
Really there is no defending that rhetoric at all, and HemmD gave a perfectly common response that tons of rational people: if the other side seems to be dominated by crazies then you won't even listen. [The conservative example of this is all the stuff on environmentalism/energy/consumerism that was seriously discussed by academics and scientists until it got picked up by the hippie/liberalism of the 60s into Carter and then "conservatives" defined their mindset as opposed to that because they thought the supporters were crazy for other reasons. Of course now all those issues are coming to a head, because they were right, and a growing number of conservatives are realizing that the issues are fundamentally in their camp.]
Actually I was about to respond to what Hemm said, and I feel you are both making my point for me!
I think it's completely wrong to say that when the 'other side is dominated by crazies' you should ignore the other side completely. Shouldn't that be the take home lesson in your examples?? You point out that some of what the radicals were saying in the 60s should have been heeded but was ignored because of their apparent 'craziness', and that's exactly what I see Dorian advocating (and many of you agreeing with) in the current situation.
It's also misleading to say who is dominating, when part of the reason that the 'crazies' appear to dominate is that the left now finds it convenient to highlight those elements just as the right previously highlighted the loony left elements in order to discredit them.
I'll add that part of my concern over this mindset is because at times I have been on the flip side of this- ignoring things that were said by people on the left because I felt that the extremists on their side discredited them.
And lastly, you appear to be disagreeing with my assertion that there really ARE kernels of truth to the 'crazy' arguments. Death panels is absurd hyperbole but that doesn't mean there isn't legitimate concern over govt authorized panels to decide on comparative effectiveness of medical treatments. The current bills are a long, long way from what the opponents are screaming about, but it's still not correct to say that there is NO legitimate basis for concern- there are even real world examples of policies which have led to life or death decisions being made by govt bureaucrats when healthcare decisions and funding are made by govt entities.
I'm not saying what "should be" I'm saying what is. Yeah I spend a ton of time learning all the nuances of all the sides and filtering out what appears to be valid and what isn't and coming up with an approximate understanding. I also am increasingly feeling like it is a complete waste of my time because it doesn't matter -- the vast vast majority of people don't give a flip. Unless you have gobs of money or political power, what you think personally doesn't really matter, so if you want to be involved the only thing that matters is how the vast majority of people think and how to influence that.
"You point out that some of what the radicals were saying in the 60s should have been heeded but was ignored "
No not that we should listen to radicals, but that they pounced on ideas that had much scientific, economic and demographic merit that were developed by people that had expertise and foresight. Those are the people that got ignored improperly. I am not complaining that hippie communes were ignored, just that because a scientist or demographer said something that the hippies also said that they were lumped in.
"Death panels is absurd hyperbole but that doesn't mean there isn't legitimate concern over govt authorized panels to decide on comparative effectiveness of medical treatments."
Everyone agrees that one of the largest problems is the lack of effectiveness data. The authorization is only to start a branch that will help collect and analyze this for general use at this point. We shouldn't give credence to absurdity just because it something could possibly happen if everything else in our politics completely changed.
Trust me, I get more pissed off than anyone that prescient people are ignored just because they are contrary (and thus radicals adopt some of the language) but I see the problem as being that the mainstream is allowing the craziness to drive the debate, not that individuals haven't properly read hundreds of hours of applicable theory to determine what is relevant.
So what I was talking about is that posts like this one which seek to ridicule, are basically advocating that we should all ignore a whole side of the debate if/when there are ridiculous people on that side. That was how I read Hemm's comment where he basically said that I should think about the company I'm keeping. Imagine feeling that way if you were anti-Iraq War, for instance, and someone like me said that you shouldn't put any credence in those sentiments because of idiot war protesters like the Code Pinkers. That's just dumb- just because people whom you'd rather not be associated with latch onto a cause, doesn't mean the cause or the political position itself should be declared illegitimate. And I get that you don't think that way- but there are an awful lot of moderate/independent thinkers here who ARE allowing themselves to be swayed by that kind of thinking.
As such I really see no other way except ridicule to try to get people to ignore it (or maybe just relieve frustration haha)...and I didn't see Dorian's original post as ridiculing the opposition in general, just the outlandishness of the arguments. In fact on other threads he has been very responsive to rational arguments against it.
I've been kind of doing that in my personal life more and more where supporters will be like "well we have to get the big insurance companies out of it because their profits are making everything too expensive" or the whole "look at all the poor people without coverage we have to help them!" And don't get me started on the ram it through argument which I was considering writing a post on. I mean I agree with the underlying premise of all those statements but they don't reflect reality in the slightest. So I bring this up and most of the time it gets them thinking and wanting to learn more but a few times people have said that it "can't be" and such and then admit they haven't actually read any analysis or anything...hopefully they did. Of course I've never mocked someone to their face about the issue yet because I don't think I'd waste my time talking to someone that would just keep repeating the same thing over and over in person.
I'm not sure if you've watched anything on the Daily Show about it, but the majority of the segments have been showing how bumbling the Democrats are. Also I agree with your perception that the big medical companies want the bill to pass because it'll give them more money and subsidize things so people will stop complaining for a while...and backroom deals show that.
Short version is that I think we disagree on the value of ridicule. I think that even people making absurdly exaggerated claims really do have some basis for their concerns. Sometimes the concern might be completely unfounded and you can show them why; other times it's a valid concern but being blown out of proportion. I think it's important to try to validate real concerns while separating those from the ones that are completely off the wall. And while we may also disagree about validity of concerns from the right, I do happen to agree with some of the core principles about govt involvement in allocation of health resources. To date, the govt insurance programs haven't rationed much at all with some populations (seniors) due to the political clout of those groups, while they do provide inadequate resources for other groups with less clout (veterans, the disabled, and Native Americans). Adding more groups under the govt umbrella will likely lead to higher and higher expenditures and then turf battles over who gets the highest quality care and who has to give up more- and to some degree senior citizens are probably going to have to give up the most from what they have now (and that's not altogether bad or wrong either, but I don't really trust the decisions to be well made.)
It is my FIRM belief that the receipt of healthcare SHOULD NOT DEPEND on POLITICAL CLOUT!
period
finit
c'est sa
A perfect example of where EACH and EVERY ONE of the current crop of reform proposals will lead us to.
One has only to examine where the portion of $787 billion stimulus that have been committed to date have gone....80% as "rewards" to supporters of the current administration.
Did I just hear a chill run down your spine?
the following is from PatriotPost.US Monday 8/31/2009
Please take the time to read it and then understand that this is NOT about healthcare reform, healthcare insurance reform or any other type of reform.....
"read my lips" it is about POWER
TO he central government FROM the citizenry.
"Chicago politics is not about ideology. It is about, 'Who Gets What, When, and How,' to quote the inimitable Harold D. Laswell, one of the outstanding political theorists of the last century. The sine qua non of Chicago politics is power, getting it and keeping it. Everything else is incidental. Even corruption is a byproduct of power and is functional only if it enables you to stay in power. In Chicago politics, you don't make waves, you don't back losers, and you 'don't talk to nobody nobody sent.' Chicago politics is always about hierarchy and centralization. ... If you want to understand Obama's health care policy, you need to start where Obama starts. You need to start with Chicago. You need to look at constituent interests. Obama won in 2008 because, among other things, he mobilized the electoral periphery. He mobilized young voters and minority voters, people who traditionally had a lower probability of showing up on Election Day. Chicago politics is about mobilizing the vote. 'Vote early and often' is the city's sardonic refrain. Obama needs his newly socialized base. He needs them to keep coming to the polls. In the vein of Chicago politics, he needs to deliver benefits to them. Unrewarded, the electoral periphery will revert back to apathy. Health care is a reward to this base of people who are on the economic as well as political periphery. ... Obama understands that his objective is to provide his base with the spoils of power -- in this case insurance. ... If all that Obama wanted were to insure those who fall between the cracks, he could put them into the same wonderful program that Congress created for itself by subsidizing their premiums. This would neither require a thousand pages of legislation nor a new series of bureaucracies. But building a new power base resulting from the mobilization of the political and economic periphery requires redefining the nation's health problems as the nation's health catastrophe. Health reform is Chicago politics on a national level." --University of Cincinnati emeritus professor of political science Abraham Miller
"Power to the People"
JustMy02cents
I do think though that to some degree, healthcare resources have already been misallocated to senior citizens and end of life care. The problem is though that there is naturally going to be some skewing toward that end of the spectrum when care is most needed- but somehow we need to come to terms with the fact that none of us are immortal and the finite worldly resources can't keep every individual alive as long as we'd necessarily like. I'd rather have the power of govt left out of the calculus for that as much as possible, but the fact is they're already in it because of Medicare and the current cost trajectory is already unsustainable.
anything else is unconstitutional
I guess I feel that regardless of the validity of your concerns, if you don't present them "well" (i.e. either rationally factual or calm...I say either because I don't think it's a vice be angry when you are actually being truthful) then you don't deserve to have them addressed. Of course the concern you have is completely valid to debate and you may never trust the government to handle it, but you stated it logically instead of saying that the government was conspiring to kill people. Tone matters.
I guess my problem is more about the people that know better that are spreading this to get people riled up, not so much the people that believe it. I don't see any reason why they should be "allowed" to do this.
"You point out that some of what the radicals were saying in the 60s should have been heeded but was ignored because of their apparent 'craziness', and that's exactly what I see Dorian advocating (and many of you agreeing with) in the current situation."
Could you please explain exactly what I am "advocating"? I thought I was just quoting what those on the right are saying.
Thanks
Dorian
In other words, I assume you decided to 'quote what those on the right are saying' for a reason, no?
And was that reason not to ridicule them? That's what satire like this generally is intended to do. If you saw some other reason to write this piece, I guess I can't figure out what that reason could be.
"In other words, I assume you decided to 'quote what those on the right are saying' for a reason, no?
"
Of course, for a reason: To, through satire---and by using verbatim quotes---expose the exaggerations, lies and fear mongering by the "right wing nuts."
BTW, adelinesdad, good try!
Well, that is what I meant when I referred to what you were advocating- because by attempting to 'expose', I assume you advocate that reasonable people should ignore those who make these exaggerated claims.
I also think you have a false assumption about what happens if healthcare reform in general is stopped. You say that it "would give us a chance to possibly start over and get it right". Considering the loudest voices on the right (see Dorian's post) seem to have no interest in reform, do not want Obama to accomplish anything of note and have not (all) been honest brokers so far, I think the possibility of starting over is slim to when does hell freeze over?
I will add, however, that I think the current Congressional leadership of Reid & Pelosi has got to go. They are a a big part of the problem.
Anna, actually just about every one of the 'fears' expressed in Dorian's satirical piece has a kernel of truth, so I reject your assertion of false equivalence on that basis. On the basis of hyperbole though, yes, there's much more of that in the conservative assertions that Dorian lampoons here.
But back to your point about the status quo bankrupting us. The problem with that argument as a support for the current plans (and yes, there are 'current plans'- and the House bill 3200 is a relevant one to critique since it made it out of committee- if we can't debate bills at that point then when the hell is the public supposed to weigh in on them??) is that the proposal doesn't bend the cost curve in the right direction according to the best nonpartisan analysts we have, the CBO. And yes, I've heard the arguments about the CBOs modelling (which curiously were never an issue for GOP proposals) but at minimum a reform plan should be cost neutral at this point and this doesn't even come close.
So explain to me again why the fearmongering over current costs bankrupting us isn't a problem, when the proposed solution doesn't address the real concern that people have over this?
Hmmm. That would result in some cost savings (about 27%). :)
You may be right, I just found it difficult to "let people off the hook a little earlier."
Any recommendations will be appreciated.
Thanks and Take care
Dorian.
The fact that as a society it's become nearly impossible to distinguish between satirical mockups and serious arguments is pretty much a meta critique of how messed up things are. This why the Daily Show, which used to be highly satirical, now gets most of its humor from just playing clips outright that directly shows (it doesn't expose anything, face value is ludicrous enough) hypocrisy and craziness with large amounts of outright mocking. Mocking is the last bastion of comedy, and Jon Stewart has given interviews where he's discussed how at times it's very hard to think of doing things in a non-mocking way.
Thanks
Dorian
"The one who screams the loudest?" I ask, knowing this because I come from a family of crazy people.
"You betcha.". . . . "That's what I think about the health care ruckus. The Republicans will say just about anything to derail progress. The Democrats are too reticent. Not that they don't have corrupt Blue Dogs with their hands in the pockets of the health care profiteers. They do. But all their talk--and the president's--of compromise is like arguing with a crazy person who will say anything. Forget reasoning. Just push the damn thing through."
Erica Jong concerning healthcare. . .
for the rest of the article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/erica-jong/dont-l...
After reading this Dorian, i am thinking Erica got it right. . .
You'd better watermark this thread with "This is a condensed version of LIES being perpetrated by the Health Industry and Republicans" because before you know it someone will be linking to your article to "prove" that Obama really wants to kill us all.
We need health care reform NOW! There's no time to debate it. Just pass it. Those who have concerns don't know what they're talking about because there is no bill yet. But we need to pass it now, even though it doesn't exist yet. If you have a concern, you shouldn't because the bill doesn't exist. But let me tell you all of the great things that are in the thing that doesn't exist yet, and how it is deficit neutral. And we're not cutting medicare benefits, just that pesky "inefficiency" known as Medicare Advantage. And this is the only way to decrease our deficit, despite the fact that the CBO says it will increase the deficit. What do they know? Remember, the bill doesn't exist yet, so how could they have scored it? We need more choice, and how can there be more choice unless we have a public option? It has the word "option" in it, so it must be the only way to provide more options. If you support Medicare, or even recognize the practical impossibility of repealing it fairly, you can't possibly be opposed to a public option. The very fact that Medicare is an entitlement that cannot be undone is evidence that we in fact need more entitlements, not less. And if you receive Medicare benefits, you lose your right to oppose anything the government wants to do from that point on. If you receive Medicare benefits, you can no longer suggest that any government program might be socialistic. And if you do, we will mock you instead of address your underlying concern that you didn't state very well. No, it doesn't matter that you paid into the program by force and feel entitled the benefit you paid and planned for. If you don't like our plan, we should take away the Medicare benefits that you paid and planned for (yes, that was suggested). Let me tell you about the time my insurance company said they might not cover something. Yes, after a few phone calls the issue was resolved, but still, they suck. They don't add anything worth-while to our health care system, which is why we need a system that makes sure that everyone can get it.
Ok, I'm no good at that. Dorian is a much better writer than I, and I admit that it's true that the rhetoric from the right seems more inflammatory than what's coming from the left these days. But both sides are spinning and deceiving. Maybe the left is just better at doing it more subtly.
(My intent is not to stir people up. I was just letting out some pent-up frustration, as was the author of this post I think. This was not a serious attempt at portraying the views of most of the people on the left, just as the post was not--I hope--a serious attempt at portraying the concerns of most on the right.)
Agreed. I admitted that the rhetoric from the right is more inflammatory. That seems to be a pattern with the party that is out of power (see the 911 conspiracy theorists on the left when Bush was in power which have similar poll number to the current Birther's movement: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_opinion_polls...) The party in power wants to look calm and calculating, to give the impression of control and confidence (hows that for some alliteration). The party out of power wants to make it seem like the world is going to end tomorrow (but if it doesn't, vote us into office as soon as possible so we can fix it). So yes, we can expect a different type of rhetoric from both sides, but beneath the rhetoric are the same distortions.
This "concern" is a slippery slope argument. Basically, they are saying that the current proposals could, eventually- at some unspecified point in time, lead to "death panels" or whatever, and ignore the fact that getting there would involve a whole new debate and legislative process. I think that kind of argument is bogus, regardless of which side is making it.
These government panels are already being touted as part of the cost-saving process, why would they require a whole new debate and legislation?
To clarify, I am probably in the minority in that I think there SHOULD be review of obviously futile care and the government needs to occasionally say no to people similar to what private insurance does. To my knowledge though the makeup and powers of these boards are not well defined, and I think they ought to be.
Except that NONE of the proposals involve financing care for illegal immigrants. Argue in good faith, please.
Have the freakin' guts to make the plan stand on its own.........people who want in......pay for it themselves.
I would especially love this for Medicare. As it stands, seniors have only paid a fraction of what they consume in healthcare dollars. We should also kill the disgrace that is Medicare Part D.
Thanks.
I hope I have taken care of your valid concern.
Unfortunately, nothing is "fail safe." We'll see
On the other hand I know a gal who has paid private insurance all her life, came in with no preexisting conditions and when she developed a life-threatening condition in her 50s, was promptly jacked on premiums until she was dropped. She now has to have a company where her premiums are so expensive and her deductable so high that she might as well just not have insurance at all. So she chooses between groceries and the procedure she needs, making her house payment and the downpayment for the surgery she has to have to stay alive. She's dying and will be dead soon. I feel certain that with public access she would recover and live at least another 20 years.
No compromise. Public option or else...
In the US, "health care is a privilege attainable by the wealthy, a benefit provided solely at the discretion of an employer, a government subsidized insurance plan for the elderly or a charitable gift provided based on the goodwill of others." (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0843/is_...)
As a Canadian, I love our universal health care system. I had ruptured my Achilles tendon 3 months ago and had surgery 5 days later with an awesome surgeon in Vancouver. My recovery has been excellent and I received no medical bill.
Name one country that has been successful at meeting the needs of every citizen with privatized health care? Can you imagine if America privatized all of its water sources. It would be a disaster.
longer wait times; losing talented doctors to private sector (a number of
Canadian doctors are heading to the US because of better wages); not enough
beds; and less equipment available like MRIs. The great thing about
privatized health care is that if Americans have the money, they will get
the best treatment. The problem is those who cannot afford insurance and who
don't get treatment. I hear stories in the US where patients are denied
service at one hospital because they won't accept their insurance and they
have to drive to another hospital. That to me is just crazy.
"Despite these stories emanating from the press and pressure groups (mostly
from the US) about the weakness of the universal health care, the fact
remains that most Canadians are satisfied with the health care system. 85.2%
of Canadians reported that they were "satisified" or "very satisfied" with
the way health care services are provided in their country and an even
higher number (89.8%) rated their physician in the same way though slightly
lower ratings were awarded to hospitals (79.9% being "satisified" or "very
satisfied")." (Source: "Healthy Canadians: Canadian government report on
comparable health care indicators<http://www.healthcoalition.ca/index-eng.pdf>
". http://www.healthcoalition.ca/index-eng.pdf.)
I believe the benefits of having universal health care outweigh the costs.
Universal health care is socialized health care and to many Americans that
scares them that the government would be in control. Socialism just does not
go right with the Republicans, but the Democrats lean to the left and are
open to ideas. Obama's plan scares Americans because they feel he will
cripple America's health care when in fact the system is already crippled in
not being able to provide health care to all citizens regardless of one's
income.
Many Americans are buying prescription drugs from Canadian distributors,
either over the Internet or traveling there to buy them in person, because
cost is substantially lower than they would pay in the US. Cross-border
purchasing has been estimated at $1 billion annually.
I believe some government control is better for a country in certain sectors
and not just free enterprise. All you need to look at is what happened with
America's banks (mortgages handed out like free candy). There are thousands
of banks in the US with little to no regulation, and now look at where the
current state of the US economy is in. I'm not being biased about how great
Canada is, but I do believe in some form of socialism. Canada has less than
100 banks that are fully regulated and have been a model to countries around
the world. Stephen Harper, the Prime Minister of Canada, was asked by
journalists from other countries how did Canada's banks stay healthy and
make profits. He responded that government regulation was key to making sure
banks don't take major risks. Canada is in a recession, but not as badly as
many countries around the world.
Steve K, you were right. I am finding several anti-abortion, anti Obama-health-care sites ar indeed quoting specific excerptstjat suit their purposes from the post.
However, they also provide the link to the original article and those who follow it may be in for a suprise. Maybe, maybe not
What legislation are you talking about? The house bill doesn't call for that at all. The piece that people were latching on to as leading to 'death panels' was the part a conservative put in the legislation to allow patients to meet with their doctor to discuss living wills and the like. I, personally, think it would be great if QUALYs were used to make decisions about which care gets funded. However, that isn't being proposed in the legislation.
I'm going by what Obama is saying in his town hall meetings. You tell me what he means I guess.
Obama isn't writing the legislation. Congress and the Senate are. That is how it is supposed to be, seperation of powers and all that.
Ok thanks for the civics lesson. I'll stop paying attention to what Obama says.
And the point is simple, health care is huge money to a relatively small group of people, and they will say and do anything to maintain their stranglehold on the market.
The proreform side isn't "choosing" to do this. News shows and their supposed "experts" are taking every crack-pot lie and repeating, repeating, repeating. What are those who are looking to reform the system supposed to do? Just sit on their hands and look at their feet when they are asked questions about "death panels"? When they say offering up a public option is taking away freedom? How are they supposed to refute the outrageous claims without talking about the outrageous claims? You say that "reasonable" people don't like the bill. I have no problem with that, and have agreed with you on that point more than once already on this very thread. The significant moderate input into the bills as they are shaping up leads me to believe that the Dems are, indeed, engaging those people and their reasonable stances, as well as encorporating additions and subtractions that they suggest. That doesn't make the evening news as often because ratings are riding so high on the endless cycle of "Obamacare will keep you from breast cancer treatments!" "It will not!" "Yes-HUH!".
"Oh please."
Oh please yourself. We've got GOP pols on TV every night talking the same bull that we hear from the townhall teabaggers. How does one negotiate in good faith with someone who, in their public appearances, basically spews a bunch of lies? Call it tenacious political strategy if you want, and it very well may be just that, but let's not pretend that there is any good-faith policy making going there.
I have no idea who decides on which congressmen to book on the shows. Is it that the GOP who have sponsored reform bills aren't invited on, or are they laying low for now? Could be either, or both.
My thought is that the reasonable conservatives are there negotiating with the reasonable progressives, which is why the bills have become increasingly more moderate since the beginning of the process. Again, maybe that means that we're all winning on this, that progress is actually being made, and that valid concerns are getting taken into account, even as the TV screamers keep on screaming. That's a nice thought. Perhaps incorrect, but nice none the less.
"Note: Some of the language used in this post has been taken verbatim or with minor modifications from statements made by GOP officials, personalities and organizations and by individuals and organizations opposed to health care reform."
Reading is fundamental...
Dorian
Pro-lifers protect life from inception to birth...then kill humans in fake wars, bankruptcy, suicide from mental stress from no health care and returning soldiers with stress disorder. Oh yeah, this country voted for a murderer--twice.
The "Death Panel" lady was exposed--she's a lobbyist--SURPRISE!
47 million people are "begging" for health care now.
We don't have to worry about rationed care and killing seniors, current health care does it now.
Read this-
"..Why? Because nationalized health care does not let doctors and their patients decide what’s best. Because nationalized health care means fewer treatment options under faceless government bureaucrats. Because nationalized health care means huge costs and higher mortality."
Or you kidding me? We have this NOW!!
If government health care is good for Congress, then it's good for us. Really, would members of Congress sign up for killing their own grandmothers? Get real.
is, don't complain about the previous admin and fake wars when this
admin is doing the same thing. The other person brought up the topic
first; did you reprimand them also?
I voted for Obama but I am VERY disappointed on the war issue.
Thanks for your reply.
You may be right SteveK.
I was hoping that the "kind of dsiclaimer" note at the bottom might do the trick.
Hopefully, if some right wing nut decides to quote me, he'll be "uninformed" enough to leave that note in his quote.
As is comprehending, as is understanding, as is thinking. But, shhh. The Demmies don't want that and are exploiting the lack of that, as usual.
I would strongly disagree that there's any "strawman" in labelling the most vociferous critics of the plan as "anti-reform". That's exactly what we're seeing from the GOP politicians -- most are NOT looking to find a solution, and they freely admit as much. This isn't everybody who is against the proposed plans, of course, but it certainly isn't a strawman.
First off, when people on the proreform side choose to highlight the extreme rhetoric from their opponents, they certainly aren't helping the cause of promoting more reasonable dialogue. People on the conservative side see that the loudmouths' tactics are working, and that moderates are more interested in spoofing those people than in engaging in real debate with the reasonable people from across the aisle. Both sides are using extremism to their advantage- the right is doing so because it works, and the left is lampooning those people instead of acknowledging that there are more reasonable people who oppose these 'reform' plans.
That's exactly what we're seeing from the GOP politicians -- most are NOT looking to find a solution, and they freely admit as much.
Oh please. I've listed the GOP bills several times here, so stop pretending that there is no credible opposition. I suppose you're referring to the people who've admitted that their political strategy is to stop this Dem led reform plan, but so what? That's nothing new- and it's typical of how the minority party strategizes. The GOP is so far in the minority that they have to stop the freight train before they can start trying to win public opinion toward their own versions of reform.
"All thinking people are for you!"
"That's not enough. I need a majority."
It is indeed fear-mongering, not merely "talking," as your statement incorrectly implies.
It is fear-mongering we've seen all year with other things as well, in rationalizing the rush to pass bad legislation.
The fear-mongering and mischacterization of the opposition (i.e., the growing public and mainstream opposition to defective and activist behavior by liberal Democrats in Washington) dwarfs the extreme behavior occasionally by the opponents themselves, while general opposition includes a wealth of facts and previous experience that leads naturally to rational and obvious concerns about rationing, denial care, and (once again) infusion of medicine (as a scientific and related field) with left politics.
The Democrats and others (I'm being overly kind and keeping this in third person) have ignored or denied the obvious truth here to their detriment, again (as with so much else) by their own hands.
They're failing, they resent it, and rather than admit they're wrong and be mature and wiser, they attack the opposition. (It's not worth proceeding into related topics such as the totalitarian tinge...)
It threatens to make it worse, as well as worse in other ways.
It is apparent that many proponents aren't necessarily dishonest in their support (though there is a wealth of such and related misbehaviors), but they may be incompetent (and ripe for exploitation).
The ironic thing is that so much the public is dissatisfied with how things are and would accept real, constructive reform, and would still do so if the Dems grew up, and became safe and sane as well as mature. (As I wrote some time ago, they currently lack adult supervision.)
Take away the tax increase.......the word "public option" is as big a freakin' lie as anything the opponents may be using as there is no "option" for me.......I pay for the public option no matter what choice I make.....conservatives may be dumb, but we're not that dumb.
If you are going to pay for adding in the illegal immigrants with "savings and efficiencies" from Medicare, then lay out exactly what those savings and efiiciencies will be......or withdraw the plan until you do.......old people may be dumb, but we're not that dumb.
Have the freakin' guts to make the plan stand on its own.........people who want in......pay for it themselves.
Throwing your whims onto the pocketbook of others who want no part of it is why it is not going anywhere. And don't give that public roads nonsense in response.
There are no limits to what your side is willing to believe, or to say. Desperation, desperation.
And were it the case (we'll get something more like our own nation in Flavour, you see), I wouldn't be a celebrity or have political connections in order to avoid the rationing and denial-of-care (and related concerns) that have always been fact based, no matter what depths people descend to evade them.
There are many more
"there was so much repetitive drivel"
Thanks for catching it, That's exactly the point
Dorian
The formative efforts are already there in the stimulus legislation. This destroys immediately any naive faith anyone may have had up to now in the solution to any problem being more government benefits. This is not the early to mid 1960s or earlier. The people who admit that yes, there have been death panels in the past but that expansion of federal entitlements solves the problem are being incredibly naive or dishonest when they support efforts by the Dems to reduce and restrict them.
And "futility" decisions by hospital ethics boards already exist, and experience in the past with rationing and denial of care (such as the famous Seattle panel for early dialysis there) is common knowledge (or at least, should be [scowl]).
The related politics and threats that are raised by the politics and history of those behind the current health care effort have existed for decades, and have created concerns ever since the later 1960s.
http://www.oregon.gov/DHS/healthplan/priorlist/...
http://www.discovery.org/a/3452
[Koop -- does that name mean anything?]
http://www.amazon.com/Right-Live-Die/dp/0842355936
http://www.amazon.com/Whatever-Happened-Human-R...
Do the proponents actually believe everyone else should be not merely naive or immature (wanting rushed, sloppy DemCare as soon as possible), but also ignorant, or dishonest, or amoral or immoral?
[sigh]
The "premiums" that are paid, are bogus: they only account for one-quarter of the expenditures.
("About 75 percent of SMI Part B and Part D expenditures are paid from Federal general fund revenues, with most of the remaining costs covered by monthly premiums charged to enrollees.")
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html
Note that the "solution" many want (such as in the Conyers Medicare For All bill) is to just poof! make all funding "mandatory" out of general revenues (leaving it to others actually to raise them).
(HR 676 also, somewhat, addresses the intent of what kinds of new taxes are to be sought.)
(b) Annual Appropriation for Funding of USNHI Program- There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this Act such sums as may be necessary.
(c) Intent- Sums appropriated pursuant to subsection (b) shall be paid for--
(1) by vastly reducing paperwork;
(2) by requiring a rational bulk procurement of medications;
(3) from existing sources of Federal government revenues for health care;
(4) by increasing personal income taxes on the top 5 percent income earners;
(5) by instituting a modest payroll tax; and
(6) by instituting a small tax on stock and bond transactions.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:1:./...
I wasn't just talking about their premiums (which should be higher). I was talking about their tax contributions over their working lives. Link below:
http://blog.american.com/?p=3990
****
"Actually, as I was reading Dorian's post, I realized that there's a flip-side that's being overlooked -- the boost to some sectors of business!
For instance: I foresee an enormous boom in specialized "knee cushions", so that grovelling ill persons can at least kneel in comfort in front of the death panel overlords. (Perhaps a special size for prostration as well?) "
********
Good, can my dying 50-something year old friend have a pair? Right now she's on her hands and knees begging her private insurance company to let her eat, keep her house and get well. So far they aren't listening. She'd like to beg them to lower her insane deductables and ever-skyrocketing premiums and not drop her like the insurer before them did, after decades of faithful premium payments.
So, yeah, send a pair of those kneepads this way.. Funny you also brought up Halloween costumes, skeletons and such. She'll probably be dead by then..
That's how should be, but in practice the Executive branch likes to involve itself in this process.
There are even people who actually want this fusion or mixing of powers to occur (such as if they are dissatisfied with the nature or pace of legislation in Congress).
"I was talking about their tax contributions over their working lives."
This applies to Social Security, too, not just to Medicare.
In fact, I routinely decline to address this and concentrate instead on the dependency ratio and the future liabilities and the tax implications for the taxpayers who will suffer greatly in the future, but what we have with these benefits is a large-scale income and wealth transfer from others to the elderly.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus...
http://csis.org/program/global-aging-vulnerabil...
Thanks for your "on-the-ground" comments on the Canadian health care system.
In spite of a (paid) TV ad to the contray, and in spite of what some others have said/will say, I have heard and read a preponderance of favorable comments on your health system.
**
"Currently, 50 million Americans have no health care coverage. That is simply unacceptable."
**
Actually they do have "coverage". It's called the ER-room. And guess who ultimately picks up that tab? That's right, we the taxpayers are already footing the bill for the 50-million uninsured. So as a member of that shareholder's group, I vote that we rein in our existing expenses on this wasteful procedure and put money into covering and oversight for this unwieldy system. I'd like to see my money go towards first legitimizing the baby with a sirname "public option" and then overseeing it's upbringing to a fully functioning system over the next 10 years or so.
I want what already exists to be named and streamlined. Preventative care that is accessible to all saves money. Also, I don't know how we the taxpayers can continue to foot the bill for those people who are currently on private insurance but who will be denied and dropped from the rolls arbitrarily and lose their homes, their jobs etc. over the issue. They will need somewhere to sleep and something to eat. And guess who will pay that bill too? Yep, that's the taxpayer again. We can't afford to deny what already exists...the ER-public option and bankruptcy from private health scams have nearly bankrupted us. That boulder has sent a real ripple out in the pond.
Dorian
We often have a short term vision for health care and not a long term. If the government and private sector started encouraging people to exercise, it saves the health care system millions of dollars in the long run: less hospital visits, and paying for medication. In Vancouver, exercise and eating right is promoted everywhere. The City of Vancouver recently closed one lane of Burrard Street Bridge for cyclists only to encourage people to bike to work. The university I work at has recently changed all their vending machines to healthy snacks and removed all junk food.
For a supposedly moderate thread, there seems to be a majority of throwbacks to the past 8 years of the Presidential Administration....especially those with BDS...
So while reading through this swapping-spit festival with Dorian, I MUST have overlooked any post that actually examined the substance of the proported satire.
Did I miss it somewhere?
Nevertheless, I digress. For the record, I do not support any of the present healthcare reform proposals.
Each has serious failings and combining the "best" from each still leaves a lot to be desired.
Nowhere has anyone explained the difference between healthcare reform and healthcare insurance reform. It seems that these terms are used interchangeably when they are very different issues.
Let me start with healthcare insurance reform. I'll admit that there are pandemic problems with today's healthcare insurance industry.....some of which may be remedied with minor surgery...(pardon the pun).
For example:
allow insruance to travel with an employee across state lines
make insurance ala carte....I DO NOT NEED TO PAY FOR MATERNITY COVERAGE...those days are over for me...there are many other mandatory coverages that I will NEVER NEED yet I STILL MUST PAY FOR THEM
eliminate the odious "pre-existing condition" and force the insurers to add all insured to the pool of covered participants.
Eliminate "waiting periods"
OK now it is YOUR turn to be a moderate voice and suggest some additional changes that will save money and improve coverage....instead of slobbering over Dorian's sad attempt at satire.
Regarding eligibility for private coverage, I believe that coverage should only be available to:
legally employed
unemployed US Citizens
unempoyed Legal Residents
(oops there goes the new voting block the left was counting on)
By no means do I think that this is anything more than a small start at a reasonable approach to reform
Just My $0.02
Please understand, I am NOT contending that these things were not said.....what I'd like to know is are any of them TRUE or close to TRUE (no parsing of words allowed here...right?)
JustMy02Cents
August 30, 2009 - Former U.S. president Bill Clinton swooped into Toronto yesterday, praising Canadian health care during an hour-long speech to just under 12,000 people.
Although Clinton's talk focused on the growing divide between the world's cities and its rural areas, he acknowledged Kennedy's passing.
"I hope that his lifetime dream, that America will finally follow Canada and every other advanced nation in the world in providing affordable health care to all of our people, will pass."
Source: http://www.edmontonsun.com/news/canada/2009/08/...
"Among the OECD's 30 members -- which include Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom -- there are only three lacking universal health coverage. The other two happen to be Mexico and Turkey, which have the excuse of being poorer than the rest (and until the onset of the world economic crisis, Mexico was on the way to providing healthcare to all of its citizens). The third, of course, is us.
As the study suggests, our grossly inflated and poorly managed health budget results from a variety of pathologies, including a greater prevalence of obesity and other chronic illness, a powerful pharmaceutical lobby that keeps prices high, and the profit-making imperative of the private insurance companies that still dominate American health policy, more than four decades after we established universal coverage for the elderly and the poor. Looking forward, the OECD advocates many of the same incremental reforms contemplated by the Obama administration."
Source: http://www.mydd.com/story/2009/3/9/18277/26800
"A single payer system could save $286 billion a year in overhead and paperwork. Administrative costs in the U.S. health care system are substantially higher than those in other countries and than in the public sector in the US: one estimate put the total administrative costs at 24 percent of U.S. health care spending."
Source: ^ Public Citizen. "Study Shows National Health Insurance Could Save $286 Billion on Health Care Paperwork:" http://www.citizen.org.
^ Reinhardt UE, Hussey PS, Anderson GF (2004). "U.S. health care spending in an international context". Health Aff (Millwood) 23 (3): 10–25. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.23.3.10. PMID 15160799. http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/fu....
Can we assume that President Clinton will be opting into the public option?
sorry in advance, but please stop throwing marshmellows....lol
justmy02cents
Thanks for the links and for the other constructive and helpful comments you have made.
Dorian
"...the fact remains that most Canadians are satisfied with the health care system. 85.2%
of Canadians reported that they were "satisified" or "very satisfied" with
the way health care services are provided in their country and an even
higher number (89.8%) rated their physician in the same way though slightly
lower ratings were awarded to hospitals (79.9% being "satisified" or "very
satisfied")."
I have seen similar figures elsewhere. They are also pretty good in England and other European countries. And, guess, what, they are lower in the US
Thanks