Oh noes! Another big scary report from the profit driven insurance industry. I say good. That last one from PricewaterhouseCoopers had the opposite effect it intended.
Basically the health insurance industry is threatening us with higher premiums unless we just do what were told. Can someone remind me what exactly health insurance companies do for us other than create a giant suck-hole for our money? I say get rid of the whole industry and that will save us 30-40% right off the top.
Sponge
15 years ago
Hey Sanchez…did you not see the reports that shows the ‘profit driven’ insurance industry had some of the lowest profits among big business? 2.2% isn’t really all that profit driven, now is it? Oh wait…that doesn’t fit your agenda. So sorry……
@Dirty Sanchez: How difficult is it for you to understand basic actuarial and business concepts? When you REQUIRE an insurance company to cover more people and more procedures and to accept the previously uninsurable costs for everyone will rise.
Even if we have a public option, costs will be much higher than any Democrat will admit, but all you have to do to know this is true is to look at Medicare.
It’s unfortunate that you cannot think beyond the well prepared talking points that were handed to you by people who are LYING to you.
But then, if you COULD think for yourself you wouldn’t be a Democrat.
LDW
15 years ago
‘Mike’s America’ – Your hysterical comment about “fringe left wing supporters who demand an immediate government takeover of America’s health care so they can start telling the rest of us how to live” is just one more example of how Americans have been beaten into submission by the corporate giants who rule the country.
Your idea that socialized medicine controls the population is bogus, idiotic and the complete opposite of reality. It’s the capitalist, privatized medical system in America that enslaves people and denies them freedom of choice. It’s the capitalist, privatized medical system in America that lets thousands die unnecessarily each year, and many more live in unnecessary pain and discomfort due to inadequate treatment for their medical conditions.
Americans have to start looking at how the rest of the OECD countries manage their healthcare systems for, on average, less than half of what Americans spend, and how the rest of the OECD countries, with strict regulations and various systems of public and private providers, manage to be healthier and live longer than Americans.
In an interview during the movie, ‘Sicko’ with a group of Americans living in France, asked how it was that the French were able to provide such good social benefits for the population, including comprehensive medical care, minimum 4-week vacations for everyone and things like help at home for mothers with newborns, one of the Americans said, ‘In France, the government is afraid of the people, whereas in America, the people are afraid of the government’.
Americans are enslaved by their healthcare system. They cannot choose their own doctors; many have lifetime ‘caps’ on coverage; many have huge deductibles and co-pays. Americans can be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions and often have to base their choice of jobs on whether or not the job can provide health insurance. Many Americans cannot start businesses, or leave their present jobs because they’ll lose their coverage. Many small employers cannot hire people with pre-existing conditions because it will bump the company’s health insurance costs into the stratosphere. People in countries with socialized medicine are ensured for their whole lives, whether healthy or sick, employed or unemployed. They choose their own doctors, and they and their doctor decide on treatment, with no insurance company bureaucratic stamp of approval needed.
‘Mike’s America’ worries that any increase in the government’s role in insurance will limit the freedoms of Americans. This is ridiculous, because the insurance companies now calling the shots impose limits and restrictions on policy holders that are unheard of in other OECD countries. Canadians, Brits, French, Swiss and German citizens, etc., etc., get to choose their own doctors, and don’t need to get any approval from a bureaucrat for treatment.
Americans are living with a healthcare system that is being looted by the big players in it. Americans are living with a healthcare system that is designed to make profits for its corporate owners, and not to provide the best healthcare for the policy holders.
Fred
15 years ago
Insurance companies are 35th on the top 50 list. Who’s tops? Satellite, cable, technical….
Even candy makers are above Insurance Companies.
But Democrat ‘leaders’ would have you believe they are evil big companies. They demonized ‘big oil’ the same way. They leave out the Democrats are the most invested in oil.
America’s citizens, aren’t you yet tired of the deception?
Ask yourself
Is it Government takeover of healthcare?
Who created it, the public or the government? Who determeined details the public or the government? Who is promoting it the public or the government?
@LDW: You’re so far out there in kookville it’s incredible. I know that no one can reason with a kool aid drinker like yourself so I won’t put much effort into it.
I’ll just comment on this: “Your idea that socialized medicine controls the population is bogus, idiotic and the complete opposite of reality.”
Why don’t you think about that a bit more?
Why do we have motorcycle helmet laws? It’s because if someone gets in an accident the rest of us will be forced to pay for his care.
The liberal assualts on fast food, smoking, hand guns, and every other lifestyle choice but risky sexual behavior are all founded on the grounds that they drive up the cost of health care.
Put government even more in charge of health care than they already are and liberal ninnies will have even more right to take away what little freedom Americans continue to enjoy.
And all in the name of helping people…. not the real motivation which is POWER!
Put down the kool aid LSD, it’s hazardous to your health!
Temujin
15 years ago
Here is a unique idea, I’ll pay for my health care and you pay for yours. Give me back the monies I and my employers paid into Medicare for the last 40+ years. Oh, I’m sorry, did you say the government has already spent that?
Why would anyone want another bankrupt social program?
Why would anyone think that with the examples of the ponzi schemes of medicare and social security, both of which Congress admits are unsustainable, that somehow socialized health care will be different?
Do not tell me about government savings. Those savings never have and never will materialize. Congress is institutionally incapable of spending restraint. Their ability to tax (or borrow or print $) and spend is their power Mike’s America talked about.
The problem is not with health care. The problem is Congress.
Lorraine
15 years ago
“The problem is not with health care. The problem is Congress.’
amen Temujin….The problem is Congress…and I still find it hard to believe how many of those fools keep getting re-elected
It is a sad time for this nation. I read somewhere that “A statesman is a politician that cares for his country and a politican is a statesman that cares for himself”. Too True
James
15 years ago
The real problem with our health care system is that it is already run by the government.
I wrote previously of my daughter, an athlete with a pre-existing injury, now resolved, who was denied coverage by California Blue Shield, because of the pre-existing condition. Through a coincidence unrelated to her quest for health insurance, she moved very recently to Massachusetts, where she has the choice of 4 excellent, affordable plans.
– LW/HB
Scrapiron
15 years ago
If you are retired military get ready for a $1500-1600 per year increase in your annual medical cost. My question is do we fight, real bloodletting by trained soldiers, if so, when?
Scrapiron
15 years ago
openid.aol.com/runnswim, have fun in the communistwealth of Ma while it last. The socialist medical care system has them on the edge, if not already over, of bankruptcy.
Patvann
15 years ago
*sigh*
Sorry ’bout the daughter, but in order to take it as serious as you want us to, more detail is needed…Was she working, and did her work provide H/C? Because I am very familiar with our recent laws that made dropping H/C due to prev-cond illegal here. Besides, one anecdotal reference, does not a proof make.
Now I noticed that you chose a link to a “rightish” leaning publication…I know the routine, it’s meant to add credence… The trouble is, that I know exactly who Michael is, and I know the WSJ is very well-balanced in it’s publications from both sides of all arguments, and political slants. Michael is very pro big-business, and loves the fact that Big Business gained from Mass Healthcare. He was against making Mass tax-free, because his Big-business friends made bank at the expense of the general taxpayer, and small businesses. While one might think that a big-time conservative like me supports big business, I HATE the fact that they get treated better than individuals and small businesses because they can afford the lobbyist’s.
So to keep with your tact of trying to make your point more legitimate to us, by posting a link from one of our fav’s, here’s my links for you to peruse…
Now please stop it, man…If Mass-care was worth anything, the Dems would be pushing it on the country. Get it through your thick head…THE PROPOSALS FROM THE HOUSE AND SENATE HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH MAKING OUR METHOD OF PAYMENT FOR HEALTHCARE ANY BETTER.
It is about the perceived future power to use it against their political adversaries. Even their own numbers say that it will still leave 10 million uninsured.
Larry. Please. Stop. It’s. About. Power.
Your rather weak attempts at convincing us, is removing any last shred of respect some of us might still have for your position and medical knowledge. Until they try something fundamentally different than what they’ve been pushing, leave us to continue mocking their attempts at re-dressing the ugly-Betty in differing skirts.
I notice that Larry has returned with his pro-Statist, pro-Nanny State, pro-Gov’t teat suckling position again. Round and round and round goes the carousel.
I wonder, if Medicare/Medicaid fraud, waste, and graft is no more relevant than a “rounding error” then how are the savings from that “rounding error” going to be significant enough to pay for the boondoggle that the Leftists are trying to cram either down our throats or up our rears?
I wonder, what’s so wrong with the idea of lifting the prohibition on the sale of insurance policies across state borders?
I wonder, why do the Statists not want the consumer to have the ability to choose whatever policy they want, from wherever they may want to purchase it anywhere across the country?
The same Statists that whine about lack of choices within their own Californian Utopia don’t want to admit that it’s their very own gov’t that has limited them to the handful of health insurance options that they find at their disposal.
The Libs have created this state of self inflicted misery and then they turn around and try to declare that the free market system just doesn’t apply to health insurance and health care providers.
And yet larry thinks he’s a moderate. You might garner a little more personal respect if you displayed the ability to be honest with yourself. Sadly like most liberals, you have ZERO personal insight. Like I said, we understand you better than you do.
BTW larry, the lefties have already been trying to push more control over the masses by claiming that “incentives” are needed to FORCE people to live healthier in order to keep medical costs down. I know you aren’t capable of seeing that, but lefties are openly saying such things.
Mike, I already know how larry will respond to your post. He will trumpet how costs were ONLY 7% higher than the rest of the nation and how wait times for cardiology went down. then he’ll point out how fewer people are without coverage. He’ll ignore everything else. You see, that info allows him to pat himself on the back for being such a wonderful person and only strengthens his belief that he’s right.
Reminds me of those people I see on the shooting range who paste over their bad shots so it looks like they are shooting better than they are.
Temudjin
15 years ago
What was the true cost of treatment under the “…4 excellent, affordable plans.”? I must assume that the term affordable means that treatment otherwise was not affordable. That leaves a delta. If that amount is not out of your pocket, it must come from somwhere else. Who pays the delta?
Does “affordable” equate to “subsidized”? Given the actual costs of treatment as a baseline and forgetting market forces and geographical differences for a moment, where does the additional money come from?
Patvann adequately referenced the Mass mess. Check on TennCare.
Tennessee tried a very modest program.
The “…Tennessee governor believes the unchecked growth of TennCare is a clear and present
danger to the state’s economic stability.” (By Ron Spangler on October 25th, 2009
Obama Health Plan Another Tenncare Fiasco) Further “…The bottom line is Tennessee’s government run experiment has been a dismal failure.”
It has not worked as a zero sum game. It will not work as a zero sum game.
Unless someone pays more. Guess who that someone is? It is the people who currently pay for their own healthcare, be that from insurance, or company benefits (which is a little more hidden but still a price) or deferred compensation, or any other means. Those people will pay the difference and pay for those who have decided not to arrange for their own health care.
Patvann
15 years ago
There is no perfect system. Never has been, nor will there ever be one. Texas has done some of the best improvements so far…
But of course rather than be objective with the obvious shortcomings of SenateCare, MassCare and TennCare, (not to mention the mess in NY), the proponents will point and shout about the few non-perfections in the Texas system.
I published an easy-to-grasp two-part list of questions and observations, that are easy to implement, and are guaranteed to make everything vastly better for all but the politicians, but NO proponent of GovCare supplied one iota of objective critique, nor one shred of tacit approval for even ONE of the proposals.
The list included everything BUT the takeover by government, so in light of that fact, the bottom line for these proponents is that they WANT the government to take it over, rather than wanting the problems alleviated.
On “our” side of the discussion, we have detailed every pro and con of everything proposed by the FedCare advocates with great detail, supplied by data, facts, experience, and history.
-The caretakers of this site have done (by far) the best, most complete compilation of the issue medically, financially, and politically.
There has been NO stone unturned by us here.
I’m done with taking this “conversation” serious with any more proponents. Ridicule and mirth are will be the only thing left of me to bring to the fore….
At least that makes it fun, as I wait for the NeoFacists’ on the Hill, and their willing-to-be led drone-supporters to implode and self-destruct over this, and Cap ‘n Tax.
From where I sit, they’ve all gotten predictable and pathetic.
You provided lots of links to criticisms of the Mass Health Care plan. These come from all sides of the political spectrum, for just one example (from the Boston Globe reference):
We must let Congress know we want improved access to affordable healthcare for all, not more expensive private health insurance we can’t afford to use when we are sick. Massachusetts healthcare reform fails on all five Institute of Medicine criteria. Congress should not make it a model for the nation.
This was from a physician, who clearly was in favor of a government-run, single payer system. No one claims that the Mass plan is perfect. As someone else wrote, there doesn’t exist on the planet the perfect system. The underlying problem is the explosion in expensive medical technologies and drugs, combined with an aging population, in a system which doesn’t follow the usual rules of market economics (see below).
I’ve stated my own position, in detail, on other threads. I’ve explained how health care doesn’t follow the rules of market economics, because the “seller” and he/she who makes the “buy” decisions are the exact same person — the doctor. Increasing competition of insurance companies across state lines won’t do anything to change this fatal flaw in the capitalist health care system.
Health care in this country is in big trouble. Small business health insurance premiums are going up an average of 15% this year alone; this is on top of doubling during the 8 years of the Bush administration. The GOP controlled congress for 12 years and had the Presidency and Congress for 6 years and the only thing that they did, health care wise, was pass a massive socialistic entitlement — the Medicare prescription drug law — which, by the way, practically everyone now likes, as practically everyone in Germany, France, Australia, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Holland, New Zealand, etc etc likes their “socialized” health care, which has universal access, no personal health care related bankruptcies, equal or better outcomes, and lower cost. Our socialized army, police, and fire also get high approval ratings. Public health and safety is better managed by public agencies, accountable to the public. Blue Cross and Aetna do vastly more rationing than does Medicare.
Just to try to be responsive to questions asked by others: My daughter is a 2009 college graduate who has to purchase her own health insurance. California has a VERY competitive health insurance environment — I’m sure, more choices and more competition than in South Carolina, to address someone’s criticism. We’ve also had the type of malpractice reform touted by conservatives as a near-panacea — in place here for THIRTY YEARS. Yet she couldn’t obtain coverage, on account of a pre-existing injury which was totally resolved. When she (just) moved to MA, she was given the choice of 4 different Blue Shield policies, all of which she’d have to pay for out of pocket, but all of which were affordable for her. Of course, this doesn’t prove one single thing, and I only offered it as one personal anecdote.
I simply posted the link to the Wall Street Journal editorial because it was relevant to the present discussion.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim: It’s so amusing to watch you dig that hole DEEPER AND DEEPER LARRY!
MassCare/TennCare/ObamaCare… the common thread is that they are all big spending/huge taxing/ care rationing monsters which destroy the human link between caregivers and patients. I would think that you would be the first to recognize that reality but maybe you’ve been a big health bureaucrat for so long now you’ve lost that bedside manner which some of us still remember as the key to the doctor/patient relationship.
Small business health insurance premiums are going up an average of 15% this year alone; this is on top of doubling during the 8 years of the Bush administration. The GOP controlled congress for 12 years and had the Presidency and Congress for 6 years and the only thing that they did, health care wise, was pass a massive socialistic entitlement — the Medicare prescription drug law —.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim: To repeat Larry… you’re prepared to condemn every American to paying EVER HIGHER rates for health insurance and getting LESS for it.
You embody the remark by then Governor Reagan in the post above:
“The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they’re ignorant; it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.”
I’ve got news for you; the average American is currently paying EVER HIGHER rates for health insurance and getting LESS for it.
The GOP had their chance to improve the system and the only thing they did was to further socialize the system. Guaranteed government payments, while forbidding the ability to negotiate over prices. The biggest giveaway of tax payer dollars to lobbyists in my lifetime.
Listen to Reagan’s speech and recognize how often you have been wrong before. It might help you realize how wrong you are now.
Big government solutions DO NOT WORK!
P.S. If there is is one lib commenter on this blog that I would like to meet it would be you. If only to save you from yourself! I promise I would leave Mata at home so you wouldn’t feel overwhelmed by reality.
I watched your global warming 90 minute (or whatever) video; so I’ll certainly listen to Reagan’s speech. Do you have a link to an MP3 or youtube? I’d be delighted to visit with you, should you ever travel to the LA/Orange County area. In fact, I’ll buy you lunch. I never made it to South Carolina. There was once a time when I was sailing my boat from Morehead City to Charleston on a Thanksgiving, got caught in a gale, and ended up short of my destination, in Wrightsville Beach. Closest I ever got to SC.
Come on Larry… I have plenty of room and you’re welcome anytime. It might just be your last chance to enlighten yourself before the darkness of ObamaWorld eclipses your reason altogether!
“Congress has never before required citizens to purchase any good or service, but that is what both House and Senate health bills would mandate.
While this debate has been overshadowed by other issues involving the plan’s nearly $1 trillion cost and its government-run option, the constitutional argument strikes at a pivotal part of the health care plan’s finances. To make a government-run health care plan work, the nation’s largely uninsured young adults would need to be covered to help subsidize medical care for older and typically less-healthy Americans, legislators say.”
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi dismissed the complaint Thursday when she was asked by a reporter if the Democrats’ health reform proposal was constitutional.
“Are you serious? Are you serious?” Mrs. Pelosi replied.
But House Minority Leader John A. Boehner said the argument could not be ignored.
“I’m not a lawyer, and I’m certainly not a constitutional lawyer, but I think it’s wrong to mandate that the American people have to do anything,” he told reporters at his own press briefing last week.
The question of the mandate’s constitutionality “hasn’t been part of the public debate, but the legal community has been debating it. It’s been on all the legal blogs,” said Michael Cannon, director of health-policy studies at the libertarian Cato Institute. He said “the Constitution does not grant Congress the power to force Americans to purchase health insurance.”
In 1994, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office noted that a “mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action.”
“The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States,” the CBO said. The statement was part of an analysis of then-President Clinton’s ill-fated health care reform plan, which also required that all Americans purchase health insurance plans.
Thanks for raising an important issue. The mandate to purchase health insurance will certainly be reviewed by the Supreme Court. It is a very non-trivial issue. I just Googled “health insurance mandate” “constitutionality” and found lots of stuff, written mainly by people opposed to the Democratic health insurance initiatives. I have no expertise in constitutional law, but, for balance, I offer the following link to an argument made by the Dean of the University of California Irvine School of Law:
T.R. Reid, a long-time Washington Post correspondent, lays out those details in a fascinating new book, “The Healing of America.” Reid worked in Post bureaus in London and Tokyo, and he and his family had received health care under the British and Japanese systems. During his research, he traveled to many other countries seeking treatment for a bum shoulder he had seriously injured years earlier while in the Navy.
The result is a tale that highlights the positive and negative aspects of other systems. By almost every measure, the healthcare outcomes are better in other developed countries than in the United States, while the costs are lower.
None is perfect. They all face the problem of rising costs. But all other developed countries essentially provide care for everyone.
“For most working people under 65, we’re Germany or France or Japan,” Reid writes. “For Native Americans, military personnel and veterans, we’re Britain, or Cuba … For those over 65, we’re Canada … For the 45 million uninsured Americans, we’re Cambodia, or Burkina Faso or rural India.”
People in the latter group get care if they can pay the bill out of pocket. The United States, however, is like no other country because it “maintains so many separate systems for separate classes of people, and because it relies so heavily on for-profit private insurance plans to pay the bills,” Reid says.
Some opponents of healthcare reform complain that the focus is on extending coverage to the uninsured, which will be expensive, rather than on ways to control costs. There’s some truth to that, but extending coverage is the far more critical step. Other changes to control costs can come in turn.
Reid notes that on average, U.S. health insurance companies pay out in claims only about 80 percent of what they collect in premiums. The rest goes for marketing, underwriting and administration, with what’s left, for profit.
Interesting, Larry. As an outspoken supporter of French health care, and one who speaks unfavorably of both Canada and Britain, one would think that the US system would shine in your opinion when reading Reid’s few “quotes” in the article.
i.e. those under 65 are similar to Germany, France of Japan. Well news bulletin… most insured under 65 are in private insurance plans.
For the Native American community and military/veterans… they are already on a socialized health plan similar to Britain or Cuba. And like Britain and Cuba, this socialized plan is bankrupt and is renowned for it’s substandard treatment. But then, for the desperate uninsured, perhaps substandard treatment looks inviting… at the beginning, anyway.
For the seniors, it’s Canada since those with extra income can go the route of Medicare Advantage… a program that the occupant of the Oval Office is busy gutting, and slashing the basic Medicare on-the-verge-of-bankruptcy budget. However those with extra money cannot opt out of Medicare and save the system $1.5 bil annually unless they also walk away from all the cash the government has stolen from them since social security was implemented. Rock? Hard place? Geee… lemme think…
As far as that “45 million uninsured”… we already know that’s a bogus and inflated number. And quite frankly – despite never visiting Cambodia or the others – I’m dead certain that no one in Cambodia, rural India or Burkina Faso can walk into a state of the art ER and get treated… despite their insured status. That’s another bogus piece of BS.
Lastly, I’d like to point out that the words you quote from the article… save the actual Reid quotes… are those of the WaPo reporter, and not that of Reid.
All in all, what’s your point with the article, Larry? Seems like it is diametrically opposed to every point you’ve ever made about health care, plus drags in a few progressive talking points (from the article) to drag America’s health care into the financial and quality gutter with the rest of these systems.
There are important differences between the US system for people who have private health insurance and who are under 65 and the more fortunate residents of France and Germany and Japan. The largest segment of personal bankruptcies in the USA are people with catastrophic health care expenses and who HAVE health insurance. This is because of limitations in payouts with US private health insurance and no safety net for insured people with catastrophic illnesses which exceed these limits. The French and German systems are superior, because they provide equivalent flexibility and choice, while having safety nets, which prevent the personal bankruptcies.
The implication that the care in Veterans Affairs hospitals is “substandard” is a shot which is both cheap and undeserved. It is a fact that problems with VA health care are widely publicized, because public sector health care is transparent, while the private sector buries its mistakes — both figuratively and literally. I’m curious, also. You are perhaps suggesting that the private sector would provide better health care to native Americans than does the US Public Health Service (of which I am a Lt Cmdr in the Inactive Reserve)?
I agree with your statement that the comparison between uninsured Americans and residents of Cambodia is odious.
I favor a system which provides universal coverage for all, with the option of a concierge level of service for those employers or individuals who wish to purchase it, and a safety net for all, to eliminate health care expense related bankruptcies. This is the essence of the French/German/Japanese systems, which produce equal or superior health care outcomes, at less total cost, and which provide universal coverage.
I’ll say it again, the GOP had its chance and all it could get done was a massive increase in socialized entitlements, which was the biggest giveaway of taxpayer money to private lobbyists in my lifetime, in a massive expansion of the socialized sector of US healthcare. Interestingly, though, I don’t hear any call from anyone to “save” tax dollars by repealing this socialized expansion. It’s because the socialized expansion, like socialized Medicare itself, is a wildly popular and strongly supported program. Which is the case of all the “socialized” health care systems of Western Democracies.
By the way, I agree that Obamacare is a down payment on a future program, which will end up looking a whole lot like the French/German/Japanese systems.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Missy
15 years ago
GOP “had it’s chance” is a myth. Never did they have a filibuster proof majority and as you see now, the shut out Republican ideas of fixing healthcare are not the same as the democrats.
President Obama, Pelosi, the House and Senate committees, with the exception of the Senate Finance committee, all slammed the door, locked the Republicans out.
What they did get done during the “had it’s chance years” you know the “massive increase in socialized entitlements” the result of reaching across the aisle and working with the democrats.
That bill was bipartisan, but as you have just done, the Republicans and compassionate, conservative President Bush will be forever tagged with the blame for the “massive increase in socialized entitlements.”
So, if you are soooo unhappy with the drug benefits, wait til you see what the democrats did alllllll by their selves.
Sorry — “reaching across the aisle” as the motive for massively increasing the socialization of Medicare by the GOP doesn’t cut it. And neither does the assertion that the GOP really tried to reform health care, only to be frustrated by the Dems.
To start with the first: this wasn’t about reaching across the aisle. This was about a big time reward for big pharma, perhaps the biggest lobby in all of DC. Guaranteed government payment for super-expensive, proprietary new drugs and FORBIDDING Medicare to negotiate over drug prices, which is something which the health plans of all other countries do, which is why Americans pay 30% to 200% more for prescription drugs than elsewhere in the Western world. The biggest payout to lobbyists in my lifetime. If the GOP had wanted to “reach across the aisle,” they’d have gone along with allowing Medicare to negotiate over drug prices.
In fact, when the Dems got control of Congress in 2007, they tried to change the law to allow Medicare to negotiate prescription drug prices and thereby lower costs to the government and to Medicare beneficiaries. President Bush threatened to veto the bill the House passed. and the GOP filibustered it to death in the Senate:
When the GOP controlled both Congress and the Presidency, they could have, indeed, “reached across the aisle” to do improve health care coverage for uninsured Americans and to install a safety net to prevent personal bankruptcies in insured Americans for catastrophic health problems which exceeded their insurance benefits (the number one cause of personal bankruptcy in the USA, as I documented by citing peer-reviewed research [was it you who were the one who challenged me to produce this and then failed to acknowledge it, when I promptly did?]). But they didn’t.
After President Bush had already been in office for 6 years, he finally proposed a health care program package to make health insurance more available and affordable. He proposed making health insurance tax deductible for people who bought it on their own and taxing health insurance benefits (beyond a certain amount) for people who got it through work.
You say that the GOP tried to do something during the first 6 Bush years but were blocked by Democrats. I say that’s poppycock. But don’t take my word for it, see what neutral, liberterian-oriented writers have to say about it:
One reason the president has a good chance of getting ambitious legislation passed this year is that so many health care failures have gone unaddressed for so long. Obama and his allies can justify their program partly because the GOP has been so slow and tepid in offering alternatives. If the choice is between the quite imperfect Democratic plan and nothing, the public may prefer the Democratic plan.
It didn’t have to be this way. Republicans actually have some plausible ideas for improving the health care system. Let small businesses band together to buy insurance? Sure. Medical malpractice reform? Bound to help. Giving federal subsidies to help low-income individuals buy coverage? Go for it.
But for Republicans to propose all these measures brings to mind my friend who, new to Chicago, approached a city transit officer and said he’d like to get to State and Randolph streets. The frosty reply: “Buddy, who’s stopping you?” The only people who stopped Republicans from putting these ideas into practice were Republicans.
Former Reagan administration official Joseph Antos, a health care expert at the conservative American Enterprise Institute in Washington, is among those who wonder why. “The sad thing is Republicans have been talking about these things for a long, long time,” he told me.
You may have forgotten that George W. Bush made a big deal of proposing tax credits of $7,500 per person or $15,000 per family to purchase medical coverage. He did that in 2007, only to be spurned by a Democratic Congress. Why did he wait till the seventh year of his term? He didn’t. He had offered the idea in 2004, only to encounter raging indifference in his Republican Congress.
The truth is Republicans just can’t muster an interest in the subject until a Democratic president comes along and offers legislation, which is their cue to wake up and scream in horror. They solemnly agree the existing system has a host of serious flaws. But they can never get excited about fixing them—only about making sure Democrats don’t get to
.
Where’s your evidence that the GOP tried to reform healthcare during their 6 years of total power, only to be blocked by the Democrats?
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Missy
15 years ago
Democrats that opposed the prescription drug bill opposed it because it didn’t spend enough, others in the House and Senate, like me, opposed it because it spent too much and, you know the results. What was it supposed to be? $3-4 billion over 10 years? Well, look what was stalling dem support”
House Democratic leaders have endorsed prescription drug legislation that would cost $800 billion to $900 billion over 10 years.
And the ‘cough’ centrist, bipartisan dems Mr. Rahm Emanuel, Mr. Dooley and a handful of New Democrats broke with party leaders to offer a compromise because the big money dems legislation sure wasn’t going to go anywhere but, they still wanted it:
Now the bipartisans show up in the Senate for the bipartisan prescription drug boondoggle:
Supporters of the bill — including some Democrats who, like Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, said it was better than no bill at all — hailed the vote as a victory for senior citizens.
“This bill is an extraordinary day for seniors and indeed all Americans,” said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist. “The legislation we just passed is consequential, it is far reaching. … It is epochal in the sense it modernizes Medicare to provide 21st century care for our seniors.”
“We will continue this battle here in the United States Senate and in the course of the elections,” Kennedy said. “I’m absolutely sure that at the end of the day we will preserve the Medicare system … and we will get to the day when we have a real prescription drug program.”
Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Maryland, said senators had “squandered the opportunity to truly change history and to truly change the lives of senior citizens” by providing them with “a skimpy benefit.”
“This issue is not finished,” she said. “I intend to come back in January … to really try to get control of the cost of prescription drugs and to try to redirect these enormous subsidies that are going to insurance companies.”
Despite the strong Democratic opposition to the bill, Frist, R-Tennessee, praised it as a bipartisan effort.
“It was bipartisan legislation from day one,” he said. “It is with great satisfaction that we stand together in a bipartisan way with a bipartisan vote.”
Among the 11 Democrats who voted for the bill was Sen. John Breaux, D-Louisiana, who said it was “a balanced piece of legislation that is truly reform.”
“This is the end of a Medicare program that forces seniors to choose between food on the table and the medicine that they need,” he said.
Fellow Democrat Max Baucus of Montana said he was “extremely proud” of the bill, which he said brings “Medicare up into this century.”
Deja vu for those into the Big Pharma, remember, Obama likes them too:
When Republicans passed the prescription drug bill, they initially pushed for a complete overhaul of the Medicare plan, but by the time the conference report got to the House, that reform was much more incremental. They were able to frame the issue not as radical change, but common-sense reform. And while many conservatives hated the bill because it spent too much and many liberals hated it because it spent too little, enough folks in the middle found it nonthreatening enough to pass it into law.
The White House also has stumbled when it comes to engaging the interest groups. When Republicans moved on prescription drugs, they targeted the drug industry and seniors groups. It was a rare but fruitful alliance. The Obama White House also has corralled the support of PhRMa and they are running supportive ads. But the drug industry doesn’t have enough grassroots power to pass this themselves, and the support of seniors groups, especially the AARP, has been ill-defined and overly vague.
Both of these measures, as well another tort reform bill, passed the House this session and are pending in the Senate.
Despite ongoing lobbying efforts by business groups, the Senate is not likely to act on the legislation when it returns to Washington after Labor Day. Supporters appear to be short of the 60 votes needed to block a filibuster, and Senate leaders feel they must address more pressing issues in the few weeks that remain in this year’s session.
the President in 2001 and 2002 supported two major health care tax credit proposals, worth $13 billion and $15 billion, respectively, to provide health care coverage for displaced workers as part of a multi-billion dollar economic stimulus package. While the House passed these generous health care tax credit proposals twice—in December 2001, and again in February 2002—the Senate blocked them on both occasions.[24] The proposals would have provided a 60 percent refundable tax credit for health insurance for displaced workers who had lost their insurance coverage.
Footnote:
Senate Democrats, like their House counterparts, mostly favored Medicaid expansion and tax credits restricted to COBRA coverage only. The Bush proposal would have allowed the credit to be used for COBRA and other health insurance coverage.
Certainly because medicaid was doing so well it needed to be expanded instead of fixed.
@Missy: Still haven’t gotten back with you (mostly distracted by the necessity to pay attention to my day job, and I’ve been researching further the literature pertaining to the role of health care expenses in personal bankruptcies). Hope to be able to post my reply soon.
Response to Missy still forthcoming, but, in the meantime, I just came across a very well-written analysis, from a neutral perspective, which is very relevant to the main topic of this thread:
What is really unfolding, I suspect, is the scenario that many conservatives feared. The Obama Administration, like the Bush Administration before it (and many other Administrations before that) is creating a new entitlement program, which, once established, will be virtually impossible to rescind. At some point in the future, the fiscal consequences of the reform will have to be dealt with in a more meaningful way, but by then the principle of (near) universal coverage will be well established. Even a twenty-first-century Ronald Reagan will have great difficult overturning it.
As I wrote elsewhere, it’s my personal wish that the present Congress pass health care reform and additional legislation to discourage carbon consumption, and then for Congress to shift over to narrow GOP control in 2010. I view 1994 – 1998 (pre-impeachment) as a Golden Era in American governance, to which I’d love to see a return — but only after we have gotten irreversibly on track towards fixing our health care system.
It makes the great point that Americans die faster than virtually everywhere else in the Western world at all ages, until age 65, when they finally qualify for decent health insurance, otherwise known as our socialized Medicare, at which point we miraculously live longer than average.
>>Opponents of reform assert that the wretched statistics in the United States are simply a consequence of unhealthy lifestyles and a diverse population with pockets of poverty. It’s true that America suffers more from obesity than other countries. But McKinsey found that over all, the disease burden in Europe is higher than in the United States, probably because Americans smoke less and because the American population is younger.
>>Moreover, there is one American health statistic that is strikingly above average: life expectancy for Americans who have already reached the age of 65. At that point, they can expect to live longer than the average in industrialized countries. That’s because Americans above age 65 actually have universal health care coverage: Medicare. Suddenly, a diverse population with pockets of poverty is no longer such a drawback.<<
Oh noes! Another big scary report from the profit driven insurance industry. I say good. That last one from PricewaterhouseCoopers had the opposite effect it intended.
Basically the health insurance industry is threatening us with higher premiums unless we just do what were told. Can someone remind me what exactly health insurance companies do for us other than create a giant suck-hole for our money? I say get rid of the whole industry and that will save us 30-40% right off the top.
Hey Sanchez…did you not see the reports that shows the ‘profit driven’ insurance industry had some of the lowest profits among big business? 2.2% isn’t really all that profit driven, now is it? Oh wait…that doesn’t fit your agenda. So sorry……
@Dirty Sanchez: How difficult is it for you to understand basic actuarial and business concepts? When you REQUIRE an insurance company to cover more people and more procedures and to accept the previously uninsurable costs for everyone will rise.
Even if we have a public option, costs will be much higher than any Democrat will admit, but all you have to do to know this is true is to look at Medicare.
It’s unfortunate that you cannot think beyond the well prepared talking points that were handed to you by people who are LYING to you.
But then, if you COULD think for yourself you wouldn’t be a Democrat.
‘Mike’s America’ – Your hysterical comment about “fringe left wing supporters who demand an immediate government takeover of America’s health care so they can start telling the rest of us how to live” is just one more example of how Americans have been beaten into submission by the corporate giants who rule the country.
Your idea that socialized medicine controls the population is bogus, idiotic and the complete opposite of reality. It’s the capitalist, privatized medical system in America that enslaves people and denies them freedom of choice. It’s the capitalist, privatized medical system in America that lets thousands die unnecessarily each year, and many more live in unnecessary pain and discomfort due to inadequate treatment for their medical conditions.
Americans have to start looking at how the rest of the OECD countries manage their healthcare systems for, on average, less than half of what Americans spend, and how the rest of the OECD countries, with strict regulations and various systems of public and private providers, manage to be healthier and live longer than Americans.
In an interview during the movie, ‘Sicko’ with a group of Americans living in France, asked how it was that the French were able to provide such good social benefits for the population, including comprehensive medical care, minimum 4-week vacations for everyone and things like help at home for mothers with newborns, one of the Americans said, ‘In France, the government is afraid of the people, whereas in America, the people are afraid of the government’.
Americans are enslaved by their healthcare system. They cannot choose their own doctors; many have lifetime ‘caps’ on coverage; many have huge deductibles and co-pays. Americans can be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions and often have to base their choice of jobs on whether or not the job can provide health insurance. Many Americans cannot start businesses, or leave their present jobs because they’ll lose their coverage. Many small employers cannot hire people with pre-existing conditions because it will bump the company’s health insurance costs into the stratosphere. People in countries with socialized medicine are ensured for their whole lives, whether healthy or sick, employed or unemployed. They choose their own doctors, and they and their doctor decide on treatment, with no insurance company bureaucratic stamp of approval needed.
‘Mike’s America’ worries that any increase in the government’s role in insurance will limit the freedoms of Americans. This is ridiculous, because the insurance companies now calling the shots impose limits and restrictions on policy holders that are unheard of in other OECD countries. Canadians, Brits, French, Swiss and German citizens, etc., etc., get to choose their own doctors, and don’t need to get any approval from a bureaucrat for treatment.
Americans are living with a healthcare system that is being looted by the big players in it. Americans are living with a healthcare system that is designed to make profits for its corporate owners, and not to provide the best healthcare for the policy holders.
Insurance companies are 35th on the top 50 list. Who’s tops? Satellite, cable, technical….
Even candy makers are above Insurance Companies.
But Democrat ‘leaders’ would have you believe they are evil big companies. They demonized ‘big oil’ the same way. They leave out the Democrats are the most invested in oil.
America’s citizens, aren’t you yet tired of the deception?
Ask yourself
Is it Government takeover of healthcare?
Who created it, the public or the government? Who determeined details the public or the government? Who is promoting it the public or the government?
@LDW: You’re so far out there in kookville it’s incredible. I know that no one can reason with a kool aid drinker like yourself so I won’t put much effort into it.
I’ll just comment on this: “Your idea that socialized medicine controls the population is bogus, idiotic and the complete opposite of reality.”
Why don’t you think about that a bit more?
Why do we have motorcycle helmet laws? It’s because if someone gets in an accident the rest of us will be forced to pay for his care.
The liberal assualts on fast food, smoking, hand guns, and every other lifestyle choice but risky sexual behavior are all founded on the grounds that they drive up the cost of health care.
Put government even more in charge of health care than they already are and liberal ninnies will have even more right to take away what little freedom Americans continue to enjoy.
And all in the name of helping people…. not the real motivation which is POWER!
Put down the kool aid LSD, it’s hazardous to your health!
Here is a unique idea, I’ll pay for my health care and you pay for yours. Give me back the monies I and my employers paid into Medicare for the last 40+ years. Oh, I’m sorry, did you say the government has already spent that?
Why would anyone want another bankrupt social program?
Why would anyone think that with the examples of the ponzi schemes of medicare and social security, both of which Congress admits are unsustainable, that somehow socialized health care will be different?
Do not tell me about government savings. Those savings never have and never will materialize. Congress is institutionally incapable of spending restraint. Their ability to tax (or borrow or print $) and spend is their power Mike’s America talked about.
The problem is not with health care. The problem is Congress.
“The problem is not with health care. The problem is Congress.’
amen Temujin….The problem is Congress…and I still find it hard to believe how many of those fools keep getting re-elected
It is a sad time for this nation. I read somewhere that “A statesman is a politician that cares for his country and a politican is a statesman that cares for himself”. Too True
The real problem with our health care system is that it is already run by the government.
More on the Massachusetts model:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748703298004574457284265913574.html
I wrote previously of my daughter, an athlete with a pre-existing injury, now resolved, who was denied coverage by California Blue Shield, because of the pre-existing condition. Through a coincidence unrelated to her quest for health insurance, she moved very recently to Massachusetts, where she has the choice of 4 excellent, affordable plans.
– LW/HB
If you are retired military get ready for a $1500-1600 per year increase in your annual medical cost. My question is do we fight, real bloodletting by trained soldiers, if so, when?
openid.aol.com/runnswim, have fun in the communistwealth of Ma while it last. The socialist medical care system has them on the edge, if not already over, of bankruptcy.
*sigh*
Sorry ’bout the daughter, but in order to take it as serious as you want us to, more detail is needed…Was she working, and did her work provide H/C? Because I am very familiar with our recent laws that made dropping H/C due to prev-cond illegal here. Besides, one anecdotal reference, does not a proof make.
Now I noticed that you chose a link to a “rightish” leaning publication…I know the routine, it’s meant to add credence… The trouble is, that I know exactly who Michael is, and I know the WSJ is very well-balanced in it’s publications from both sides of all arguments, and political slants. Michael is very pro big-business, and loves the fact that Big Business gained from Mass Healthcare. He was against making Mass tax-free, because his Big-business friends made bank at the expense of the general taxpayer, and small businesses. While one might think that a big-time conservative like me supports big business, I HATE the fact that they get treated better than individuals and small businesses because they can afford the lobbyist’s.
So to keep with your tact of trying to make your point more legitimate to us, by posting a link from one of our fav’s, here’s my links for you to peruse…
http://www.progressivestates.org/journalists/532/mass-health-care-plan-proves-costly-to-individual-citizens
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=97620520
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/03/02/mass_healthcare_reform_is_failing_us/
http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2009/05/28/pm_massachusetts/
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080407/lieberman
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/16/health/policy/16mass.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss
http://healthcarereform.nejm.org/?p=2133
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2009/february/massachusetts_is_no_.php
http://www.accuracy.org/newsrelease.php?articleId=1594
Now please stop it, man…If Mass-care was worth anything, the Dems would be pushing it on the country. Get it through your thick head…THE PROPOSALS FROM THE HOUSE AND SENATE HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH MAKING OUR METHOD OF PAYMENT FOR HEALTHCARE ANY BETTER.
It is about the perceived future power to use it against their political adversaries. Even their own numbers say that it will still leave 10 million uninsured.
Larry. Please. Stop. It’s. About. Power.
Your rather weak attempts at convincing us, is removing any last shred of respect some of us might still have for your position and medical knowledge. Until they try something fundamentally different than what they’ve been pushing, leave us to continue mocking their attempts at re-dressing the ugly-Betty in differing skirts.
@Patvann:
I notice that Larry has returned with his pro-Statist, pro-Nanny State, pro-Gov’t teat suckling position again. Round and round and round goes the carousel.
I wonder, if Medicare/Medicaid fraud, waste, and graft is no more relevant than a “rounding error” then how are the savings from that “rounding error” going to be significant enough to pay for the boondoggle that the Leftists are trying to cram either down our throats or up our rears?
I wonder, what’s so wrong with the idea of lifting the prohibition on the sale of insurance policies across state borders?
I wonder, why do the Statists not want the consumer to have the ability to choose whatever policy they want, from wherever they may want to purchase it anywhere across the country?
The same Statists that whine about lack of choices within their own Californian Utopia don’t want to admit that it’s their very own gov’t that has limited them to the handful of health insurance options that they find at their disposal.
The Libs have created this state of self inflicted misery and then they turn around and try to declare that the free market system just doesn’t apply to health insurance and health care providers.
Sheer arrogance.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim: Massachusetts Model? Yeah, model for what NOT to do.
And yet larry thinks he’s a moderate. You might garner a little more personal respect if you displayed the ability to be honest with yourself. Sadly like most liberals, you have ZERO personal insight. Like I said, we understand you better than you do.
BTW larry, the lefties have already been trying to push more control over the masses by claiming that “incentives” are needed to FORCE people to live healthier in order to keep medical costs down. I know you aren’t capable of seeing that, but lefties are openly saying such things.
Mike, I already know how larry will respond to your post. He will trumpet how costs were ONLY 7% higher than the rest of the nation and how wait times for cardiology went down. then he’ll point out how fewer people are without coverage. He’ll ignore everything else. You see, that info allows him to pat himself on the back for being such a wonderful person and only strengthens his belief that he’s right.
Reminds me of those people I see on the shooting range who paste over their bad shots so it looks like they are shooting better than they are.
What was the true cost of treatment under the “…4 excellent, affordable plans.”? I must assume that the term affordable means that treatment otherwise was not affordable. That leaves a delta. If that amount is not out of your pocket, it must come from somwhere else. Who pays the delta?
Does “affordable” equate to “subsidized”? Given the actual costs of treatment as a baseline and forgetting market forces and geographical differences for a moment, where does the additional money come from?
Patvann adequately referenced the Mass mess. Check on TennCare.
Tennessee tried a very modest program.
The “…Tennessee governor believes the unchecked growth of TennCare is a clear and present
danger to the state’s economic stability.” (By Ron Spangler on October 25th, 2009
Obama Health Plan Another Tenncare Fiasco) Further “…The bottom line is Tennessee’s government run experiment has been a dismal failure.”
It has not worked as a zero sum game. It will not work as a zero sum game.
Unless someone pays more. Guess who that someone is? It is the people who currently pay for their own healthcare, be that from insurance, or company benefits (which is a little more hidden but still a price) or deferred compensation, or any other means. Those people will pay the difference and pay for those who have decided not to arrange for their own health care.
There is no perfect system. Never has been, nor will there ever be one. Texas has done some of the best improvements so far…
But of course rather than be objective with the obvious shortcomings of SenateCare, MassCare and TennCare, (not to mention the mess in NY), the proponents will point and shout about the few non-perfections in the Texas system.
I published an easy-to-grasp two-part list of questions and observations, that are easy to implement, and are guaranteed to make everything vastly better for all but the politicians, but NO proponent of GovCare supplied one iota of objective critique, nor one shred of tacit approval for even ONE of the proposals.
The list included everything BUT the takeover by government, so in light of that fact, the bottom line for these proponents is that they WANT the government to take it over, rather than wanting the problems alleviated.
On “our” side of the discussion, we have detailed every pro and con of everything proposed by the FedCare advocates with great detail, supplied by data, facts, experience, and history.
-The caretakers of this site have done (by far) the best, most complete compilation of the issue medically, financially, and politically.
There has been NO stone unturned by us here.
I’m done with taking this “conversation” serious with any more proponents. Ridicule and mirth are will be the only thing left of me to bring to the fore….
At least that makes it fun, as I wait for the NeoFacists’ on the Hill, and their willing-to-be led drone-supporters to implode and self-destruct over this, and Cap ‘n Tax.
From where I sit, they’ve all gotten predictable and pathetic.
@Patvann
You provided lots of links to criticisms of the Mass Health Care plan. These come from all sides of the political spectrum, for just one example (from the Boston Globe reference):
This was from a physician, who clearly was in favor of a government-run, single payer system. No one claims that the Mass plan is perfect. As someone else wrote, there doesn’t exist on the planet the perfect system. The underlying problem is the explosion in expensive medical technologies and drugs, combined with an aging population, in a system which doesn’t follow the usual rules of market economics (see below).
I’ve stated my own position, in detail, on other threads. I’ve explained how health care doesn’t follow the rules of market economics, because the “seller” and he/she who makes the “buy” decisions are the exact same person — the doctor. Increasing competition of insurance companies across state lines won’t do anything to change this fatal flaw in the capitalist health care system.
Health care in this country is in big trouble. Small business health insurance premiums are going up an average of 15% this year alone; this is on top of doubling during the 8 years of the Bush administration. The GOP controlled congress for 12 years and had the Presidency and Congress for 6 years and the only thing that they did, health care wise, was pass a massive socialistic entitlement — the Medicare prescription drug law — which, by the way, practically everyone now likes, as practically everyone in Germany, France, Australia, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Holland, New Zealand, etc etc likes their “socialized” health care, which has universal access, no personal health care related bankruptcies, equal or better outcomes, and lower cost. Our socialized army, police, and fire also get high approval ratings. Public health and safety is better managed by public agencies, accountable to the public. Blue Cross and Aetna do vastly more rationing than does Medicare.
Just to try to be responsive to questions asked by others: My daughter is a 2009 college graduate who has to purchase her own health insurance. California has a VERY competitive health insurance environment — I’m sure, more choices and more competition than in South Carolina, to address someone’s criticism. We’ve also had the type of malpractice reform touted by conservatives as a near-panacea — in place here for THIRTY YEARS. Yet she couldn’t obtain coverage, on account of a pre-existing injury which was totally resolved. When she (just) moved to MA, she was given the choice of 4 different Blue Shield policies, all of which she’d have to pay for out of pocket, but all of which were affordable for her. Of course, this doesn’t prove one single thing, and I only offered it as one personal anecdote.
I simply posted the link to the Wall Street Journal editorial because it was relevant to the present discussion.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim: It’s so amusing to watch you dig that hole DEEPER AND DEEPER LARRY!
MassCare/TennCare/ObamaCare… the common thread is that they are all big spending/huge taxing/ care rationing monsters which destroy the human link between caregivers and patients. I would think that you would be the first to recognize that reality but maybe you’ve been a big health bureaucrat for so long now you’ve lost that bedside manner which some of us still remember as the key to the doctor/patient relationship.
@Mike:
To repeat:
Do I not have my facts clear and correct on this?
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
–
@openid.aol.com/runnswim: To repeat Larry… you’re prepared to condemn every American to paying EVER HIGHER rates for health insurance and getting LESS for it.
You embody the remark by then Governor Reagan in the post above:
@Mike:
I’ve got news for you; the average American is currently paying EVER HIGHER rates for health insurance and getting LESS for it.
The GOP had their chance to improve the system and the only thing they did was to further socialize the system. Guaranteed government payments, while forbidding the ability to negotiate over prices. The biggest giveaway of tax payer dollars to lobbyists in my lifetime.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim: And you Larry want to condemn us to getting even less while paying ever more and more and MORE!
No thanks…
I’ve got the Reagan speech playing in the background as I write.
Listen to the Reagan speech Larry. You might recognize yourself.
@Mike:
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim: Thank you for admitting exactly what YOU are doing Larry!
Listen to Reagan’s speech and recognize how often you have been wrong before. It might help you realize how wrong you are now.
Big government solutions DO NOT WORK!
P.S. If there is is one lib commenter on this blog that I would like to meet it would be you. If only to save you from yourself! I promise I would leave Mata at home so you wouldn’t feel overwhelmed by reality.
@Mike:
I watched your global warming 90 minute (or whatever) video; so I’ll certainly listen to Reagan’s speech. Do you have a link to an MP3 or youtube? I’d be delighted to visit with you, should you ever travel to the LA/Orange County area. In fact, I’ll buy you lunch. I never made it to South Carolina. There was once a time when I was sailing my boat from Morehead City to Charleston on a Thanksgiving, got caught in a gale, and ended up short of my destination, in Wrightsville Beach. Closest I ever got to SC.
– Larry W/HB
@openid.aol.com/runnswim: You’ve never been to SC and yet feel you know the vox populi?
Come on Larry… I have plenty of room and you’re welcome anytime. It might just be your last chance to enlighten yourself before the darkness of ObamaWorld eclipses your reason altogether!
Let me throw this out here for comment.
Constitutionality of health overhaul questioned
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/28/constitutionality-of-health-overhaul-questioned/?feat=article_top10_read
“Congress has never before required citizens to purchase any good or service, but that is what both House and Senate health bills would mandate.
While this debate has been overshadowed by other issues involving the plan’s nearly $1 trillion cost and its government-run option, the constitutional argument strikes at a pivotal part of the health care plan’s finances. To make a government-run health care plan work, the nation’s largely uninsured young adults would need to be covered to help subsidize medical care for older and typically less-healthy Americans, legislators say.”
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi dismissed the complaint Thursday when she was asked by a reporter if the Democrats’ health reform proposal was constitutional.
“Are you serious? Are you serious?” Mrs. Pelosi replied.
But House Minority Leader John A. Boehner said the argument could not be ignored.
“I’m not a lawyer, and I’m certainly not a constitutional lawyer, but I think it’s wrong to mandate that the American people have to do anything,” he told reporters at his own press briefing last week.
The question of the mandate’s constitutionality “hasn’t been part of the public debate, but the legal community has been debating it. It’s been on all the legal blogs,” said Michael Cannon, director of health-policy studies at the libertarian Cato Institute. He said “the Constitution does not grant Congress the power to force Americans to purchase health insurance.”
In 1994, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office noted that a “mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action.”
“The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States,” the CBO said. The statement was part of an analysis of then-President Clinton’s ill-fated health care reform plan, which also required that all Americans purchase health insurance plans.
@Old Trooper:
Thanks for raising an important issue. The mandate to purchase health insurance will certainly be reviewed by the Supreme Court. It is a very non-trivial issue. I just Googled “health insurance mandate” “constitutionality” and found lots of stuff, written mainly by people opposed to the Democratic health insurance initiatives. I have no expertise in constitutional law, but, for balance, I offer the following link to an argument made by the Dean of the University of California Irvine School of Law:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28620.html
There are also vigorous opposing views argued in the comments to the blog post.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
There’s a new book on the health care debate, just out, written by TR Reid. I think it’s an original “take” on the issue.
He points out that the USA doesn’t just have a private health care system, it’s got a cornucopia of systems.
http://www.reuters.com/article/smallBusinessNews/idUSTRE59S3FX20091029
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Interesting, Larry. As an outspoken supporter of French health care, and one who speaks unfavorably of both Canada and Britain, one would think that the US system would shine in your opinion when reading Reid’s few “quotes” in the article.
i.e. those under 65 are similar to Germany, France of Japan. Well news bulletin… most insured under 65 are in private insurance plans.
For the Native American community and military/veterans… they are already on a socialized health plan similar to Britain or Cuba. And like Britain and Cuba, this socialized plan is bankrupt and is renowned for it’s substandard treatment. But then, for the desperate uninsured, perhaps substandard treatment looks inviting… at the beginning, anyway.
For the seniors, it’s Canada since those with extra income can go the route of Medicare Advantage… a program that the occupant of the Oval Office is busy gutting, and slashing the basic Medicare on-the-verge-of-bankruptcy budget. However those with extra money cannot opt out of Medicare and save the system $1.5 bil annually unless they also walk away from all the cash the government has stolen from them since social security was implemented. Rock? Hard place? Geee… lemme think…
As far as that “45 million uninsured”… we already know that’s a bogus and inflated number. And quite frankly – despite never visiting Cambodia or the others – I’m dead certain that no one in Cambodia, rural India or Burkina Faso can walk into a state of the art ER and get treated… despite their insured status. That’s another bogus piece of BS.
Lastly, I’d like to point out that the words you quote from the article… save the actual Reid quotes… are those of the WaPo reporter, and not that of Reid.
All in all, what’s your point with the article, Larry? Seems like it is diametrically opposed to every point you’ve ever made about health care, plus drags in a few progressive talking points (from the article) to drag America’s health care into the financial and quality gutter with the rest of these systems.
@mata:
There are important differences between the US system for people who have private health insurance and who are under 65 and the more fortunate residents of France and Germany and Japan. The largest segment of personal bankruptcies in the USA are people with catastrophic health care expenses and who HAVE health insurance. This is because of limitations in payouts with US private health insurance and no safety net for insured people with catastrophic illnesses which exceed these limits. The French and German systems are superior, because they provide equivalent flexibility and choice, while having safety nets, which prevent the personal bankruptcies.
The implication that the care in Veterans Affairs hospitals is “substandard” is a shot which is both cheap and undeserved. It is a fact that problems with VA health care are widely publicized, because public sector health care is transparent, while the private sector buries its mistakes — both figuratively and literally. I’m curious, also. You are perhaps suggesting that the private sector would provide better health care to native Americans than does the US Public Health Service (of which I am a Lt Cmdr in the Inactive Reserve)?
I agree with your statement that the comparison between uninsured Americans and residents of Cambodia is odious.
I favor a system which provides universal coverage for all, with the option of a concierge level of service for those employers or individuals who wish to purchase it, and a safety net for all, to eliminate health care expense related bankruptcies. This is the essence of the French/German/Japanese systems, which produce equal or superior health care outcomes, at less total cost, and which provide universal coverage.
I’ll say it again, the GOP had its chance and all it could get done was a massive increase in socialized entitlements, which was the biggest giveaway of taxpayer money to private lobbyists in my lifetime, in a massive expansion of the socialized sector of US healthcare. Interestingly, though, I don’t hear any call from anyone to “save” tax dollars by repealing this socialized expansion. It’s because the socialized expansion, like socialized Medicare itself, is a wildly popular and strongly supported program. Which is the case of all the “socialized” health care systems of Western Democracies.
By the way, I agree that Obamacare is a down payment on a future program, which will end up looking a whole lot like the French/German/Japanese systems.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
GOP “had it’s chance” is a myth. Never did they have a filibuster proof majority and as you see now, the shut out Republican ideas of fixing healthcare are not the same as the democrats.
President Obama, Pelosi, the House and Senate committees, with the exception of the Senate Finance committee, all slammed the door, locked the Republicans out.
What they did get done during the “had it’s chance years” you know the “massive increase in socialized entitlements” the result of reaching across the aisle and working with the democrats.
That bill was bipartisan, but as you have just done, the Republicans and compassionate, conservative President Bush will be forever tagged with the blame for the “massive increase in socialized entitlements.”
So, if you are soooo unhappy with the drug benefits, wait til you see what the democrats did alllllll by their selves.
@Missy:
Sorry — “reaching across the aisle” as the motive for massively increasing the socialization of Medicare by the GOP doesn’t cut it. And neither does the assertion that the GOP really tried to reform health care, only to be frustrated by the Dems.
To start with the first: this wasn’t about reaching across the aisle. This was about a big time reward for big pharma, perhaps the biggest lobby in all of DC. Guaranteed government payment for super-expensive, proprietary new drugs and FORBIDDING Medicare to negotiate over drug prices, which is something which the health plans of all other countries do, which is why Americans pay 30% to 200% more for prescription drugs than elsewhere in the Western world. The biggest payout to lobbyists in my lifetime. If the GOP had wanted to “reach across the aisle,” they’d have gone along with allowing Medicare to negotiate over drug prices.
In fact, when the Dems got control of Congress in 2007, they tried to change the law to allow Medicare to negotiate prescription drug prices and thereby lower costs to the government and to Medicare beneficiaries. President Bush threatened to veto the bill the House passed. and the GOP filibustered it to death in the Senate:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Medicare_legislation
When the GOP controlled both Congress and the Presidency, they could have, indeed, “reached across the aisle” to do improve health care coverage for uninsured Americans and to install a safety net to prevent personal bankruptcies in insured Americans for catastrophic health problems which exceeded their insurance benefits (the number one cause of personal bankruptcy in the USA, as I documented by citing peer-reviewed research [was it you who were the one who challenged me to produce this and then failed to acknowledge it, when I promptly did?]). But they didn’t.
After President Bush had already been in office for 6 years, he finally proposed a health care program package to make health insurance more available and affordable. He proposed making health insurance tax deductible for people who bought it on their own and taxing health insurance benefits (beyond a certain amount) for people who got it through work.
http://money.cnn.com/2007/01/23/pf/taxes/health_proposal_effect/index.htm
It was way too little, way too late.
You say that the GOP tried to do something during the first 6 Bush years but were blocked by Democrats. I say that’s poppycock. But don’t take my word for it, see what neutral, liberterian-oriented writers have to say about it:
http://reason.com/archives/2009/09/14/the-republican-health-care-fai
.
Where’s your evidence that the GOP tried to reform healthcare during their 6 years of total power, only to be blocked by the Democrats?
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Democrats that opposed the prescription drug bill opposed it because it didn’t spend enough, others in the House and Senate, like me, opposed it because it spent too much and, you know the results. What was it supposed to be? $3-4 billion over 10 years? Well, look what was stalling dem support”
And the ‘cough’ centrist, bipartisan dems Mr. Rahm Emanuel, Mr. Dooley and a handful of New Democrats broke with party leaders to offer a compromise because the big money dems legislation sure wasn’t going to go anywhere but, they still wanted it:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/02/us/medicare-drug-benefit-plan-is-proposed-by-2-democrats.html
Now the bipartisans show up in the Senate for the bipartisan prescription drug boondoggle:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/11/25/elec04.medicare/index.html
We lose more to fraud and malpractice insurance than bankruptcy:
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2009/07/30/the_medical_bankruptcy_myth_97335.html
Deja vu for those into the Big Pharma, remember, Obama likes them too:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/24/feehery.bipartisan.health/index.html
Here is an outline of President Bush’s early health reform policies:
http://www.heartland.org/publications/health%20care/article/12160/How_the_Presidents_Health_Care_Plan_Covers_the_Uninsured.html
Tort reform:
http://atlanta.bizjournals.com/extraedge/washingtonbureau/archive/2000/08/21/bureau1.html?market=atlanta
Footnote:
Certainly because medicaid was doing so well it needed to be expanded instead of fixed.
http://www.heritage.org/research/healthcare/bg1804.cfm#_ftn24
More malpractice obstruction:
http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cache:G7MULPfiMlcJ:www.tcf.org/Publications/healthcare/medicalmalpractice.pdf+senate+democrats+block+bush+tort+reform&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESiwe-wI8dluASFtgOkT6Wh7PwE4i0RK1fIytFjp5rVEVxR_A7Tw12-WvQ_ws5W3Ad7KdHl6cacvHqVWEf0NP0DkAB_HSvE6t-I0nW1J11RJP5dxE3eiq-z6y1E1jmjxc5ud0oP1&sig=AFQjCNGl8w1mkPn6hUxiUV0HLh99MbsDEA
In short, they blocked anything they couldn’t lard up and anything that would interfere with their gravy train.
@Missy: Thanks for the positive rejoinder. Deserves a counter-response — back with you later. – Larry W/HB
@Missy: Still haven’t gotten back with you (mostly distracted by the necessity to pay attention to my day job, and I’ve been researching further the literature pertaining to the role of health care expenses in personal bankruptcies). Hope to be able to post my reply soon.
– Larry W/HB
Response to Missy still forthcoming, but, in the meantime, I just came across a very well-written analysis, from a neutral perspective, which is very relevant to the main topic of this thread:
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2009/11/some-vaguely-heretical-thoughts-on-health-care-reform.html
As I wrote elsewhere, it’s my personal wish that the present Congress pass health care reform and additional legislation to discourage carbon consumption, and then for Congress to shift over to narrow GOP control in 2010. I view 1994 – 1998 (pre-impeachment) as a Golden Era in American governance, to which I’d love to see a return — but only after we have gotten irreversibly on track towards fixing our health care system.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
This is a just published op-ed which does a very good job of exploding the myth of the superiority of the American private health insurance system.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/05/opinion/05kristof.html
It makes the great point that Americans die faster than virtually everywhere else in the Western world at all ages, until age 65, when they finally qualify for decent health insurance, otherwise known as our socialized Medicare, at which point we miraculously live longer than average.
>>Opponents of reform assert that the wretched statistics in the United States are simply a consequence of unhealthy lifestyles and a diverse population with pockets of poverty. It’s true that America suffers more from obesity than other countries. But McKinsey found that over all, the disease burden in Europe is higher than in the United States, probably because Americans smoke less and because the American population is younger.
>>Moreover, there is one American health statistic that is strikingly above average: life expectancy for Americans who have already reached the age of 65. At that point, they can expect to live longer than the average in industrialized countries. That’s because Americans above age 65 actually have universal health care coverage: Medicare. Suddenly, a diverse population with pockets of poverty is no longer such a drawback.<<
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA