• Democrats say the newly unveiled House health care bill will save lives and reduce deficits. But will it get any Republican support? Alan calls out the “Party of No.”
• Alan confronts anti-abortion extremist Randall Terry, who is now calling on people to burn effigies of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.
• Think you can survive the cut? Just in time for Halloween, it’s a spooky edition of Sudden Death Radio!
EARTH CALLING ALAN, EARTH CALLING ALAN—THE REPUBLICANS DON’T HAVE THE VOTES TO STOP ANY HEALTHCARE BILL. I REPEAT, THE REPUBLICANS DON’T HAVE THE VOTES TO STOP ANY HEALTHCARE BILL.
IT IS THE DEMOCRATS ALAN. WAKE UP AND GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT. IT IS THE DEMOCRATS SAYING NO.
Sheeessssshhh!!! And I thought you could at least show a little honesty.
John Galt:
” I simply pointed out that government can’t even manage a free book service! The flippin library is in debt and only gaining speed. IN order to provide thier free service to the community, they refuse to charge a fee and in the process end up closing facilities thus reducing their service to the public.
And you want to trust these clowns with your health care
”
John: This is easily the stupidest argument I have seen you make.
1.It is the government’s responsibility to provide for the public libraries. BECAUSE….the government has denied children the right to earn their living and buy their books, and arm themselves to compete with already educated adults.
2.Once you see the above is a necessary expense “in lieu” for the children’s right to earn their living being denied, we now come to the expense issue.
Republicans keep cutting funding for the libraries. You keep cutting funds for ANYTHING, it goes in the red. This “deeper and deeper in debt” is surely the dumbest argument you have posted, dont you agree? DONT cut the funding of the libraries, they DO manage their funds quite efficiently. Modernization ALSO comes with costs, libraries cant modernize magically.
Accept you need to pay for children to get the free library in return for taking away their right to earn a living. Or, give them that right. Or, be a boor and compete against children after arming yourself with an education.
John Galt said,
“Seattle’s library woes have nothing to do with “the last eight years”
……………………..
Of course it does….it was predictable and predicted.
When economic times are hard, the first thing local and national governments always seem to want to do, is cut funds for education and for essential services like hospitals, health care, children’s welfare, and so on, so that agencies and systems concerned with these things have to fight over very small pieces of a budgetary pie.
Or perhaps it has taken from Ben Franklin’s time for libraries to fall apart.
Frankly, I think the opposite can be said; “don’t try and sell me this snake oil remedy nonsense that the private sector is cost efficient or will save money in essential services,”.
This is the reason why so many actual providers and profe$sional a$$ociations support the public option OR single payer while opposition comes mostly from the insurance industry.
Support is already high except among industry lobbyists, the opposition party, (who is terrified that Democrats will get credit for a popular program), and the same low information voters who, (according to the 1994 WSJ/NBC poll said,” “Many Don’t Realize It’s Clinton Plan They Like,”
The article explained that although only 37 percent of respondents said they supported the Clinton plan, when various health care options were read to them without identifying their sponsors, 76 percent said the Clinton plan had either “a great deal of appeal” or “some appeal,” making it more popular than any of the competing proposals.
Voters had no idea what was in the Clinton plan, but they knew they didn’t like it.
That is the job of the Freedomworks and the Luntz….to make sure people are ill informed.
I think really, that YOU simply can not make the case that what we have is cheaper and/or better. We NOW a “crummier “service offering sub standard care to anyone not fortunate not enough to afford a good plan that won’t drop them when they they really need it, (after years of paying premiums).
You really want to talk about a “stinking book fair”, when your free market guys, when left to their own devices, brought us Enron, Worldcom, Global Crossing, Tyco, Anderson Accounting, Bear Sterns, Lehmann, AIG, BOA, etc, PLUS all the missing BILLIONS to private contractors in Iraq??
Have at it!
“Agreed. And this is why heart surgery is no longer considered cutting edge.”
There is a difference between ‘no longer cutting edge’ and ‘commoditized’. Generally speaking, to get commoditized one of the requirements is it has to be simplfied for the masses, e.g anyone can operate a DVD player (with the possible exception of my father). But since heart surgery requires about 12 years of study at least, it will never get commoditized (at least not until robots can do it).
“Why MRIs and CAT Scans are abundant”
Interesting you mention those. Heavily overused and there is no evidence countries with a smaller scanner density actually suffer. In fact, there is a study that projects 2% of the cancers we get over the next 20 years will be caused by CT’s/X-Ray exposure, partly due to the frivolous use in this country.
Anyway, back to the point, even these are not commodities as again they require specialist training to operate.
“While a very few may be priced out of that care today, the benefit is that entire generations of people will be saved tomorrow”
Another fact for you to chew on. The CBO has stated that introduction of new technology and drugs is about 50% of the cause of increases in healthcare cost. Normally the ‘product’ cost curve is meant to go the other way!
“In short, society will benefit immensely.”
No, the evidence states not as much as you believe. But this aside, I’m not advocating publically owned health providers or drug makers. The ‘insurance provider’ on the other hand should definately not be for-profit.
eric…you can’t keep saying you want a civil debate when 90% of everything you post is insane psychotic ramblings that more often than not only faintly resemble the topic at hand.
I can’t even fathom to count how many times you’ve besmirched the name of a conservative commentator…when it wasn’t even part of the conversation.
you either don’t understand the meaning of the word civil or you have multiple personality disorder.
I’m sorry for all the BIG words I’ve thrown at you today, I’ll try and dummy it down for you in the future.
Also you get mocked and called names, because you exude a special kind of moronity that can only be responded to with mocking and name calling.
Only registered user allowed |
“Alan confronts anti-abortion extremist Randall Terry, who is now calling on people to burn effigies of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.”–Joel
Should be a fiery interview, no pun intended.
(Okay, maybe I intended the bad pun just a LITTLE bit.)
Joel Reply:
October 29th, 2009 at 9:36 pm
I’m actually a bit ashamed that I didn’t think of that myself.
Lib Patriot Reply:
October 29th, 2009 at 11:49 pm
(blush)
EricG Reply:
October 30th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
LOL!
Aw … that’s funny.
–
Can we burn Randy?
No, really.
He is a spawn of hatred and violence.
We might be better off if he randomly exploded in flames…
October 29th, 2009 at 6:48 pm
American colonists burned George III in effigy. When that was a capital offense.
Do you want to be a part of the British Commonwealth? Canada isn’t that far north of you. I think we solved the problem of liberalism, they never got over having a disaffected monarch telling them how to live their lives. Its just too dangerous to let people think for themselves.
crh3e Reply:
October 29th, 2009 at 9:52 pm
Pelosi/Reid=King George III……..wow what have you been smoking? Can I buy some?……talk about apples and oranges!?!
Lib Patriot Reply:
October 29th, 2009 at 11:47 pm
Do you want to be a part of a feudalistic system, where the wealthiest get to keep hoarding their money and use religion & right-wing dogma to keep the little people in their place? Mexico isn’t that far south of you. I think we solved the problem of conservatism, they never got over having an old B-movie actor-turned-president telling them the greedy self-centered way they lived their lives was just fine, and that asking the wealthier Americans to pay more in taxes as % of income was “punishing success”. It’s just too dangerous to get people to think of the country’s needs as a whole over the desire to further fatten their own pocketbooks.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
October 30th, 2009 at 11:25 am
Ronald Reagan was not a B-movie actor….for the record
luv2lift48 Reply:
October 30th, 2009 at 11:34 am
Thats right..He even had a TV series where his co-star was a chimp’..You just can’t buy experience like that considering his VP
jasperjava Reply:
October 30th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
Yeah, “Bedtime for Bonzo” was a cinematic masterpiece, better than potboilers like “Citizen Kane” that elitist liberal Hollywood film critics seem to like.
What a shame that Reagan never won an Academy Award for that moving performance. Just more proof of liberal bias in Tinsel Town.
EricG Reply:
October 30th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
I used to say things like:
“There is no such thing as a problem with liberalism or a problem with conservativism. People who say these things are anti-society and hate freedom of opinion.”
Now I’m not so sure anymore.
Conservatives make a home for bigots, liars and racists to live in called “political outrage” where they spread fascism, racism, bigotry, lies, hatred, and deadly war policy.
Neo-Conservatives, all of them, are the enemies of the state. They are trying to destroy democracy because they are frustrated with the direction it is taking.
They are terrorists-in-waiting.
And groups like Fox News only support their agenda of bigotry and lies.
All people coming from this insane “anti-liberal” stance I hear these days have no facts and no basis for any of their rage and disdain except to repeat the nonsense off the air of that trash-network.
Idiots and racists should be treated equally to those who stand for intelligent and fair play?
Not in my book.
October 29th, 2009 at 7:02 pm
Randall Terry should follow the example of all the Buddhist monks protesting the Vietnam war who drenched themselves in gasoline and lit themselves on fire.
http://www.vietnampix.com/fire1.htm
crh3e Reply:
October 29th, 2009 at 9:53 pm
haha, that is a good one! Well done Rocky!
October 29th, 2009 at 7:08 pm
Terry is an odd duck. He’s just … odd.
It’s curious the loudest anti-abortion/anti-choice voices are male. Always. This is the one issue men should just leave alone for women to decide.
He’s a Catholic. That’s also curious but I won’t go into why. I have an idea why it’s odd but I can’t put it into words. The whole abortion, birth control thing is just … weird. And then, there’s all that Catholic child abuse stuff and how they work so hard to hide it. You know, Hitler was a Catholic too?
Bible thumpers are a curse on humanity.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
October 30th, 2009 at 11:24 am
well…if it’s my child it seems I should have some sort of vested interest in the decision…
John Galt Reply:
October 30th, 2009 at 11:26 am
if it’s my child it seems I should have some sort of vested interest in the decision…
I wonder if the child will ever get a choice? Nahh, just liberal women it would seem.
Um Cara Reply:
October 30th, 2009 at 11:30 am
I wonder if the child will ever get a choice? Nahh, just liberal women it would seem.
You don’t think conservative women get abortions?
John Galt Reply:
October 30th, 2009 at 11:35 am
You don’t think conservative women get abortions?
Interesting topic. But we’re talking about whether to extend the benefit of discussing choice to certain groups. Or restrict conversations of choice to other groups.
Keep up ;-)
Um Cara Reply:
October 30th, 2009 at 11:50 am
Interesting topic. But we’re talking about whether to extend the benefit of discussing choice to certain groups.
That doesn’t really follow from what you said:
I wonder if the child will ever get a choice? Nahh, just liberal women it would seem.
Side note: ‘Pro Choice’ is as silly a description as ‘Pro Abortion’.
There are all kinds of ‘choices’ that are not addressed by self labeled ‘Pro Choice’ people, and almost nobody is Pro Abortion either.
‘Pro legal abortion’, and ‘anti legal abortion’ seem to fit better. (And ‘Pro Life’ is also ridiculous, as there are quite a few ‘Pro Life’ people in favor of such barbarity as the government putting people to death for crimes)
John Galt Reply:
October 30th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
That doesn’t really follow from what you said:
I think it does.
See, up in the conversation some one makes the statement that perhaps men should stay out of the whole debate–restricting one group’s right to discuss this topic. Guido weighs in by saying that because the child is his, maybe he has a right to discuss.
Finally, I ask if we will ever consider giving the child the right to voice her opinion on the whole choice thing.
See, the entirety of the sub-conversation is who to extend the privileged of debate too. My final point was that it would seem only women and not children. Then I had to amend my thought because the liberals want to include women but only pro-choice women; which excludes conservative women.
There are all kinds of ‘choices’ that are not addressed by self labeled ‘Pro Choice’ people, and almost nobody is Pro Abortion either.
I agree the labels may not be the best labels. I didn’t make them up though, so will continue to use what most people recognize as standard.
And yes, I recognize that many people are not pro-abortion. But that’s not the message they send. If they compromise and support abortions for certain reasons and exclude abortions for others, it would seem we could come together.
Um Cara Reply:
October 30th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
I didn’t make them up though, so will continue to use what most people recognize as standard.
Yea, I know – it makes it easier to communicate. And since I generally stay out of abortion debates, I don’t have to use any of the terms.
I just think the commonly used terms are all ridiculous (on both sides).
‘Pro Abortion’ ‘Pro Life’ ‘Pro Choice’ ‘Anti Choice’
Pure silliness
EricG Reply:
October 30th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
Since you are so ignorant about this I guess I have to inform you.
Women you know who are conservatives, maybe even those who you look up to, have had abortions.
People who you never thought would ever consider an abortion, have had an abortion.
It’s not just “liberal women” and by the standard you just set if a young girl is raped by her father, she just became a liberal when she decided she didn’t want to have her own brother / sister and risk her own life by going to term at a young age.
Like so many issues I hear spouted from the right, you are misinformed to a point that you sound like a babbling child more than anything else.
EricG Reply:
October 30th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
You really got to stop listening to so much conservative-talk radio. It’s screwed up you actually believe this nonsense.
When a rapist grabs a woman off the street, he doesn’t stop to check if she is a liberal or a conservative before he rapes her.
And all you people want is for women to have their rapists babies and have the incestuous child from their father / uncle. It’s fascism.
Pure and simple.
You all would do better to start calling yourselves what you are: fascists.
You want to control women. Just be honest and stop the spin for once in your short life.
John Galt Reply:
October 30th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
EricG Reply:
My point, Eric, is that those having the discussion don’t want the discussion to include men.
I mention nothing about abortion, who should or shouldn’t have them or who does or doesn’t. Only that I find it funny that only liberal women are allowed to weigh in.
flap Reply:
October 30th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
“I just think the commonly used terms are all ridiculous (on both sides).
‘Pro Abortion’ ‘Pro Life’ ‘Pro Choice’ ‘Anti Choice’”
Um Cara, I agree with you 100%. They’re pep rally terms that don’t speak to anything factual.
I mean, most people who are not “pro-life” are actually pretty pro-life, they just think that abortion doesn’t qualify.
And people who are not “pro-choice” are actually pretty pro-choice, they just think that abortion doesn’t qualify.
flap Reply:
October 30th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
“Only that I find it funny that only liberal women are allowed to weigh in.”
Pregnant women are like James Bond…they have a license to kill. And if you say that they shouldn’t, you’re an evil chauvinist from the Middle Ages.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
October 30th, 2009 at 6:55 pm
FYI…I scrolled past everything Ericg had to say in this thread, and I don’t think I missed anything.
John Galt Reply:
October 30th, 2009 at 8:40 pm
FYI…I scrolled past everything Ericg had to say in this thread, and I don’t think I missed anything.
I sometimes think that Eric is one of those posters that goes to opposition websites/blogs and just blasts nonsense in order to drive people away from that site’s “leaning.”
EricG Reply:
November 1st, 2009 at 6:51 pm
John Galt -
That’s not completely true.
I am adopted from a mother who might have decided to have an abortion.
I have a direct and personal reason to be involved in this discussion.
Just like any woman, who actually has a womb, is to an even greater degree.
But these things don’t mean that your point of view, or a radical point of view like Flap’s, should be shunned from the discussion.
It should only be made clear that the issue which you are talking about doesn’t actually effect your body or your life. That you are spouting from a place of pure ideology and it has nothing to do with reality in any form.
It’s very much like discussions on the military.
Some people talk big about the military but are nothing but chicken hawks who would run from a battle before they would fight it. Other people have actually served this country. This doesn’t mean only people in the Armed Forces can talk about war, but it means we should be aware of what we are hearing before we decide if someone has the issue in their grip or not.
Men should be included in a discussion on abortion. But it should also be clear that they are not the ones who would have their lives infringed upon by enacting what they propose.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
November 1st, 2009 at 6:57 pm
in the context of anti-abortion groups, flaps point of view is fairly moderate…once again proving you don’t actually read (or at least internalize) what anyone writes.
EricG Reply:
November 1st, 2009 at 7:02 pm
Actually, you people on this site specifically have proven to me many times over that you are vicious and mean-spirited people.
Not people I would want to spend time with in the real world.
If you want to talk about “driving people away” how about all the times you hateful jerks have called me names and attacked me personally while I was only giving my perspective on this website.
Do you even care about that?
Or do you only whine when someone calls out the trash and hate that you spread everyday in place of real logic and real discussion.
–
I welcome a real debate, but you just admitted why I don’t even try anymore.
You people are so jaded and arrogant you have decided only someone who identifies with your ideology can be paid any serious attention to.
I will put on my “conservative suit” and pretend to be one of you and you’d all kiss my butt.
–
Try this out neo-cons:
Stop lying and spinning everything about Obama and The Dems and maybe you’ll find yourself having a real discussion instead of hearing about how you all a corrupt party of hatred and lies.
I know you all don’t know this but this is a common discussion I have with some.
I love political debate, and I have many conservatives in my family.
But when they speak with me they usually walk away going:
“Is that really true?”
The answer is yes. They really did lie to you on the radio or on Fox or in the NY Post. They really did. Check it out, please God check it out with more than one source.
The difference is that I know the difference (I thought it was obvious but I am being to see I am “special” in that I can identify bias) between ideology and facts.
People are free to dislike and even disdain Obama, but if you lie about the facts and lie about his record, you just made an enemy of the American Public.
The truth hurts.
learning that your precious “conservatism” is not any better or worse than “liberalism” is just not any fun for any one to learn. So they elect to listen to the people who twist everything into hatred and baloney (O’Reilly, Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, etc)
EricG Reply:
November 1st, 2009 at 7:23 pm
See I disagree with this on both behalf of Flap and Um Cara.
The term “pro-life” is useless and a waste of time.
The term “anti-choice” is too partisan thus becomes useless.
The term “pro-abortion” is completely false and only designed to promote hatred for others.
The term “pro-choice” is exactly what I am and exactly what so many others are as well.
The term “anti-abortion” is exactly what so many on the right wing are and explains in breif exactly what they are against.
–
If we are going to throw away all the terms I want to throw away “Christian” and throw away “patriot” and throw away “common sense” and throw away “spin” and throw away “morality”.
All these terms / words have no meaning because everyone uses them for political agendas and not truthfully.
–
I think the anti-abortion movement is flawed in that they seek no solutions, not a damn one. They only want to force their religious views into law and don’t care what the consequences of this action would be.
I think the pro-choice movement is flawed in that they are trying to simplify a complex issue by saying a unborn child is only a “fetus” and not a “baby”.
–
The funny part in all this is that I probably would side with the anti-abortion people if they would only get their act together and have some kind of solution to the problem, nay crisis, of unwanted pregnancies.
Just look at how much hate and vindictive comments people like Flap and Guido and JaredFromTexas and Daddio have made against liberals in general or even against me personally in the course of discussion.
Go back and read it all, Liberaland. You might be shocked how much of my partisanship is fanned off of the heartless attacks made against me by these people trying to GET ME OFF THIS WEBSITE.
These are the same people I would agree with on the greater issue, but because they don’t see me as an “evangelical” and a “conservative” they attack me like rabid dogs.
…
Here’s hoping for a better world.
EricG Reply:
October 30th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
Newsflash:
You bring something up, it gets talked about.
I know it’s tough living without the Fox News Filter saving you from hearing the truth, but you might want to “try to keep up” yourself.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
November 1st, 2009 at 6:59 pm
did you even read the post he was referring to?
EricG Reply:
November 1st, 2009 at 7:12 pm
Guido -
I believe i read the whole thing. I’ll re-read it to see if I can see what you are talking about.
I think you are guilty of this, Guido.
That’s my assessment.
I think I’ve been beyond fair and beyond nice many times all I get in return is mocking and name-calling and hatred.
Your anti-liberal screeds have consequences, just like my anti-conservative screeds do as well.
But like I always see, you seek to avoid all of your side of the blame and turn everyone not sparking up your side of the argument while ignoring how often you ignore the facts and ignore the politeness of others directed toward you.
–
I’ve said a million times I want a more civil political debate in this country.
But if you are speaking out in favor of the likes of Randal Terry and the racist Glenn Beck and the bigot Rush Limbaugh then you can bet I’ll become an attack-dog rather than roll over and play dead while hatred and propaganda take over.
–
Be more specific if you want to play the “you are not listening to me” game.
I don’t think you guys on the right ever read what I have to say.
Heck, you admitted yourself to skipping everything I said because I said it.
You are guilty of exactly what you claim is my offense.
Geez ….
This is why I’m well past fed up with the right wing.
It’s all about blaming everyone but your leaders and ignoring everything except specific spin directed at you to make you feel good about your own illogical stances on society.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
November 1st, 2009 at 10:54 pm
eric…you can’t keep saying you want a civil debate when 90% of everything you post is insane psychotic ramblings that more often than not only faintly resemble the topic at hand.
I can’t even fathom to count how many times you’ve besmirched the name of a conservative commentator…when it wasn’t even part of the conversation.
you either don’t understand the meaning of the word civil or you have multiple personality disorder.
I’m sorry for all the BIG words I’ve thrown at you today, I’ll try and dummy it down for you in the future.
Also you get mocked and called names, because you exude a special kind of moronity that can only be responded to with mocking and name calling.
EricG Reply:
November 1st, 2009 at 7:31 pm
Proof-positive that Flap is radical in regards to the abortion issue:
(read this Guido, like you give a damn anyway about the truth)
I have nothing to say about this kind of vile bullshit.
Flap is a liberal-hater.
I fight day & night with my “bad side” that hates neo-cons and evangelicals. It’s not right to give in to hate. But that fight means nothing to people who speak such as this. Flap obviously cares nothing for coming together and only wants to demonize women.
Sexism and intolerance are not something I can do anything but called out as unpatriotic and ungodly.
Sorry, stop doing such disgusting acts of verbal carnage and I’ll start trying to draw out the good parts of the anti-abortion argument for those on the left who don’t get it.
As it stands, we are nothing but a pack of partisans. deal.
October 29th, 2009 at 11:24 pm
That reminds me, I have to go feed the cat.
October 29th, 2009 at 11:26 pm
Health insurance reform will put the insurance companies out of business because they won’t be able to compete?
The conservative callers always present this as an argument against reform. To me, it seems like an obvious argument “for” reform. Heck, yeah!!! If the private insurers can’t compete, put ‘em out of business and give something better room to replace them.
My night isn’t complete until I hear from “Whisperin’ Bill Anderson”.
Lee Reply:
October 30th, 2009 at 5:29 am
I actually hope they go out of business.. It would be like getting rid of loansharks.
Insurance companies offer no innovation, no cost-efficiency and no product quality benefits. As a result, regardless of ideology, if you want the best system, government ‘paid’ is always best.
John Galt Reply:
October 30th, 2009 at 10:52 am
Insurance companies offer no innovation, no cost-efficiency and no product quality benefits.
For the record, are you anti-insurance or anti-insurance company?
EricG Reply:
October 30th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
John Galt Reply:
October 30th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
if you are just against giving people health care
I am against passing laws that require stealing money from one person to pay for another person’s stuff. That stuff could be shoes, pumpkins, snow shovels or medical care.
What I AM for is arranging a system to produce the lowest cost possible for those very same things. A cost low enough so that if someone DID want to purchase them, they could.
For example, if use as the threshold “Don’t go bankrupt by getting sick” then we are very close today. A single man can purchase a policy for $50 a month that will protect him from bankruptcy in the event he gets sick or hurt.
But the methods being put forward will only make the care more expensive and harder to obtain.
If I gave you a choice between system A where care was abundant and cheap enough that everyone who wanted it could purchase it or system B where care was given to everyone but was now more expensive and harder to obtain and even when obtained was of lesser quality–whom among you would honestly choose system B?
Lee Reply:
October 30th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
“For the record, are you anti-insurance or anti-insurance company?”
I’m anti ‘insurance company’. Some form of insurance is necessary to socialize the risk and ensure that sick/vulnerable people don’t pay a disproportionate amount of the actual costs.
Lee Reply:
October 30th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
“But the methods being put forward will only make the care more expensive and harder to obtain. ”
Why do you think the ‘care’ will be more expensive or are you actually specifically referring to the insurance premiums?
Why would care be ‘harder to obtain’? And for whom?
Lee Reply:
October 30th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
Forgot about this:
“For example, if use as the threshold “Don’t go bankrupt by getting sick” then we are very close today. A single man can purchase a policy for $50 a month that will protect him from bankruptcy in the event he gets sick or hurt”
68% of medical bankruptcies are by people who had health insurance.
Those 50 dollar a month policies are absolutely useless and a false comfort.
Lee Reply:
October 30th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
I wish Conservatives who argue against public paid healthcare and that the US is ‘the best in the world’ would read the data on this hyperlink.
It’s one of the best online sources I’ve found on the topic that explodes the Right-wing myths about healthcare:
pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php
John Galt Reply:
October 30th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
Some form of insurance is necessary to socialize the risk and ensure that sick/vulnerable people don’t pay a disproportionate amount of the actual costs.
Good to hear. Am glad that you see by spreading risk, we are all better off. This is the method that allowed trade back in the days of shipping goods by boat. They would insure against storm or piracy.
But, from a pure scientific standpoint, it has nothing to do with the vulnerable.
Why would care be ‘harder to obtain’?
As the price of a thing [care] goes down, the demand for it will go up. Further, as the price of a thing goes down [doctor compensation] the supply of it will go down as well.
You will have two powerful forces merging. Higher demand for care and lower supply of care givers.
68% of medical bankruptcies are by people who had health insurance.
How many is that #?
Lee Reply:
October 30th, 2009 at 6:08 pm
“As the price of a thing [care] goes down, the demand for it will go up.”
Yes, this is one way your standard model fails when applied to healthcare.
Healthcare demand has little to do with price. It doesn’t matter if you make a heart valve replacement free, if people don’t need a heart valve replacement, the fact it’s available is irrelevant.
Even when applied to ‘checkups’, people won’t get one every week because its free.
“Further, as the price of a thing goes down [doctor compensation] the supply of it will go down as well.”
No, Firstly, I haven’t seen any legislation to try and reduce fee levels paid to healthcare providers although it would be a good thing. Secondly, people in the healthcare field are not driven by profit to enter the field, however you raise a good point..
There are too many doctors entering lucrative specialties and too few generalists. We definately need to reduce the income disparity in order to encourage more generalists.
“How many is that #?”
Approximately 650000 people a year file medical bankruptcy based on some quick approximate calculations.
John Galt Reply:
October 30th, 2009 at 6:36 pm
Healthcare demand has little to do with price.
Health care responds to price in the same manner as everything else. More important than medical care is food. And we have warehouses full of fresh food on every street corner.
Soviet Russia on the other hand; not so much.
Venezuela. The world’s largest coffee grower now has coffee shortages because they price coffee below the cost to produce it.
I haven’t seen any legislation to try and reduce fee levels paid to healthcare providers
Both versions in the House and the Senate restrict the payments to Doctors. This results in nearly $275 billion in savings. This is what gets the bills below a trillion. However, because they recognize that this is no bueno, legislation has been introduced separately to delay that restriction. For how many years? Ahem, 10. Right after the CBO’s study stops.
Approximately 650000 people a year file medical bankruptcy
Which represents less than 1/3 of 1% of Americans. Further, if we take your numbers above and apply them, 70% of 650,000 is about 450,000 people file who have health insurance. That number is almost vanishingly small.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
October 30th, 2009 at 7:03 pm
Lee…why do senior citizens wait til they are on medicare to get knee replacements…even if they want them before they are eligible?
they still “needed” the knee replaced before, but waited until they could get it at the lowest price (free)
Lee Reply:
October 31st, 2009 at 12:56 am
“Health care responds to price in the same manner as everything else”
No it doesn’t! I’ve even explained why! Look if Champagne suddenly became 10 cents a bottle then there would be a rush of demand and obvious shortages. Healthcare simply doesn’t respond the same way because people have to actually ‘need’ the healthcare.
“Lee…why do senior citizens wait til they are on medicare to get knee replacements…even if they want them before they are eligible?”
Guido, this is not the same question. If you know that a product is going to be ‘on sale’ in a week then you’d feel foolish the week before paying extra.
On the other hand, if that same person needs a knee replacement and isn’t aware of an imminent price drop he is going to pay the current price regardless of what it is.
Conversely, again if knee replacements became gratis, the only people who get them are still people with damaged knees. This is exactly the same pool of consumers as before so basic supply/demand actually tells you supply will be basically unaffected.
Lee Reply:
October 31st, 2009 at 1:03 am
“Which represents less than 1/3 of 1% of Americans. Further, if we take your numbers above and apply them, 70% of 650,000 is about 450,000 people file who have health insurance. That number is almost vanishingly small.”
Actually it’s 650k not 450k as I already accounted for that. This was a rough approximation (I think it was 1.5 mill x 0.66 x 0.68)
Even so, I’m not sure how on earth you can classify 650000 people a year as ‘vanishingly small’. That’s more than the entire population of Baltimore _every year_ !!
Seriously, how big would it have to be for you to be ’statistically significant’?
John Galt Reply:
October 31st, 2009 at 1:33 am
No it doesn’t!
Yes it does. Of course it does. This is why cough medicine is available and cheap. Motrin too. In fact, you can now get prescriptions at Walmart for $10 for a 90 day supply.
Seriously, how big would it have to be for you to be ’statistically significant’?
You do understand, right, that you will die one day. Right?
JaredfromTexas Reply:
October 31st, 2009 at 2:15 am
LEE,
Healthcare simply doesn’t respond the same way because people have to actually ‘need’ the healthcare.
In the same way that people “need” the champagne???? While I think you have the best of intentions…there is no way to identify an actual outcome when it comes the public option. Neither side has a crystal ball…although both sides seem to think they do.
This is exactly the same pool of consumers as before so basic supply/demand actually tells you supply will be basically unaffected.
While the “pool” of consumers who need knee replacements may be the same…the difference becomes availability, right? The amount of people who are actually able to have a knee replacement pre-public option will be significantly higher post-public option – no doubt. Then it will become a matter of supply/demand.
So, effectually, health care DOES respond to price changes just like every other consumable item.
Lee Reply:
October 31st, 2009 at 2:28 am
“Yes it does. Of course it does. This is why cough medicine is available and cheap. Motrin too. In fact, you can now get prescriptions at Walmart for $10 for a 90 day supply.”
Firstly, I hate to break it to you but OTC cough medicine is about as likely to stop a cough as a can of soda. But I digress..
Motrin is an analgesic so generally speaking, everyone has need of it from time to time. As a result, if price decreases then yes people would stock up on it quite probably. However it is hardly the same as the ’services’ we were discussing and it would be a different case if we were discussing the price of a more specialized drug which people only need if they get that specific illness. I’m not advocating government drug companies as the marketing function (their main purpose) is something drug companies do better than public institutions.
“You do understand, right, that you will die one day. Right?”
You do understand that medical bankruptcy is preventable. Right? Help me out.. How many people go bankrupt due to medical bills in the UK? France? Sweden? Germany etc? You can even use a ‘percentage’ if it helps you out.. Once you’ve found the answer, why do you think there is such an enormous difference? Hmm?
EricG Reply:
October 31st, 2009 at 2:34 am
Then you are against taxation itself and should refer to yourself as libertarian because you are not conservative and don’t support their ideologies.
Conservatives love to take my money to kill people with bombs. They never asked me if i wanted my tax dollars going toward that.
Lee Reply:
October 31st, 2009 at 2:41 am
Jared,
“In the same way that people “need” the champagne???? While I think you have the best of intentions…”
The point is that if Champagne were cheaper or Caviar, Lobsters, Filet Mignon whatever, people would be loading it up because the cheaper it is the more people will buy it.
However, that model just doesn’t work with healthcare. It doesn’t matter what the price is, if you don’t need it in the first place, people won’t get it. On the flip side, if people do need it then generally in healthcare people will pay whatever price they have to pay as ‘without health, you have nothing’.
“While the “pool” of consumers who need knee replacements may be the same…the difference becomes availability, right? ”
The need doesn’t change, but again healthcare is different to other market commodities. If I need a knee replacement but cannot afford it, I don’t get it because I don’t want to spend a lot of money, instead it’s simply something I do not have the funds to pay for even if I sacrificed my cable,phone,Internet or whatever luxury you care to mention.
In fact people are willing to pay whatever the price is so badly that many people end up mortgaging homes, selling off property etc because again ‘without your health, you have nothing’.
Lee Reply:
October 31st, 2009 at 2:47 am
Jared,
“The amount of people who are actually able to have a knee replacement pre-public option will be significantly higher post-public option – no doubt”
You know, I’ve actually become a little cynical of the public option although for none of the reasons Conservatives are against it.
You should definately check out the weblink I provided earlier from pnhp.org . It is of course partisan to government paid/single-payer care but it does and eloquent job of explaining the rationale and debunking most of the Conservative arguments I see on here.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
October 31st, 2009 at 3:30 am
LEE,
people would be loading it up because the cheaper it is the more people will buy it.
Regardless of need…I gotcha.
if you don’t need it in the first place, people won’t get it.
Not necessarily true…and not necessarily false. My point being…there’s no way to tell one way or the other at this point. Best thing to do is to assume the worst and create a plan based on that rather than assume that if people don’t need it, they won’t use it…IMO.
The need doesn’t change,
Nor did I intend to imply there was a change in the need…however, the question that started this discussion was availability…correct? If everyone who needed a knee replacement were able to have a knee replacement – it becomes a question of the availability of access to the necessary treatment post-public option as opposed to pre-public option.
My statements regarding the lack of prioritization of personal budgets with regard to health ins. doesn’t fit your scenario as you’re talking about the raw cost of a knee replacement and not the cost of the ins premium…correct?
I’ll take a look at that website at some point tonight, and I’ll get back to you.
Lee Reply:
October 31st, 2009 at 4:36 am
“Nor did I intend to imply there was a change in the need…however, the question that started this discussion was availability…correct?”
Yes, where we disagree is that I don’t believe that typical models between price and demand apply to healthcare. I believe that the only real effect price has is to define cut-off points for accessability to the service/product.
Thus decreasing the price may in fact ‘reduce supply’ but it is because a greater pool of consumers with this need are now able to afford the product. It is different because it is not merely a choice due to a value proposition as would be the case in your average consumer product.
“I’ll take a look at that website at some point tonight, and I’ll get back to you.”
Well I’m certainly interested where these guys are wrong. There are certain sites like Michael Moores for example that admittedly present arguments that are often at the very least misleading. It’s almost counterproductive sometimes to quote from such sources as there are too many areas where the data is easily discredited/questioned.
What I liked about this particular site is that it is very current, fairly comprehensive (to me at least) and isn’t just rehashing arguments like infant mortality etc without tackling the standard retorts from the Right.
Anyway, I’m not trying to ram it down peoples throats and if there was a right-wing equivalent (i.e that doesn’t just rehash positions) I would genuinely be interested in visiting it and seeing why they think the Liberal arguments against ‘their’ positions are wrong.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
October 31st, 2009 at 4:53 am
LEE,
I believe that the only real effect price has is to define cut-off points for accessability to the service/product.
But without the “price” there would effectually be no cut-off point for accessability, thereby potentially increasing the demand and limiting availability.
but it is because a greater pool of consumers with this need are now able to afford the product.
Yes, this is what I’m trying to imply.
It is different because it is not merely a choice due to a value proposition
But for some people, it would be a value proposition if they were one of the unlucky few who didn’t have insurance before the public option.
I’ve yet to visit that site. I’ll let you know my opinion.
Lee Reply:
October 31st, 2009 at 2:47 pm
Jared,
“But for some people, it would be a value proposition if they were one of the unlucky few who didn’t have insurance before the public option.”
No, just as I cannot afford a Learjet even if it was my single greatest need in life, neither could someone afford a procedure that’s above their spending capability. There, value has nothing to do with it, even if Learjet’s had a 4 for 1 deal, I could still not buy one..
But to put this argument back in reality.. One of the favorite targets of the Right on why Universal Healthcare is supposedly a bad idea is to look at waiting lists in other countries.
However, what is interesting is that the waits are for what we would consider essential, non-frivolous procedures which you wouldn’t get unless you needed them.
If you just want to get a same-day doctors appointment for a check-up etc, it’s actually easier in such countries (UK is one example) which kind of destroys the idea that ‘making it cheap/free will make too many people use it’ argument.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
October 31st, 2009 at 10:08 pm
LEE,
Perhaps I misunderstood your statement:
It is different because it is not merely a choice due to a value proposition
I took this to mean a person does not have the choice to participate due to the value of the commodity. If my interpretation was correct, then we could infer the “value” of the commodity DOES impact the choice. If there were no “value” applied to the product, the consumer would not have to choose to purchase or not based on the value.
neither could someone afford a procedure that’s above their spending capability
Completely agree…but take away the cost, and the choice is made much easier…and entirely based upon the value of the product. If you could buy a learjet for a fraction of the cost, and it was within your financial means to do so, you have effecively negated the value/choice conundrum.
In this discussion, the value of health-care is much reduced if the public-option were to pass, than it would be if not, thereby eliminating the need to choose based on the value itself.
the waits are for what we would consider essential, non-frivolous procedures
Yes, agreed. HOWEVER, when population is compared, the number of people who require these essential procedures is increased proportionately…without a necessary and proportionate increase in providers. THAT is where the waiting lists generate from. Too many people needing the required care – not enough doctors to administer the care.
which kind of destroys the idea that ‘making it cheap/free will make too many people use it’ argument.
Interesting how you’re willing to use one aspect of foreign nationalized health care to shore up your argument while discounting another. The sad fact is that noone can accurately predict how much of a burden free health care will have on the system. The only thing to do is look at comparable systems at the moment of inception and sort of infer a possible outcome.
I say “at inception” because we need to compare apples to apples here. Long term, the US health care system may balance out…but initially/near term, I really believe we’d face a shortage of the commodity.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
October 31st, 2009 at 10:11 pm
LEE,
I had a chance to take a quick at the website you posted. I haven’t been able to dig into it yet.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
October 31st, 2009 at 10:59 pm
You do understand that medical bankruptcy is preventable. Right?
—
perhaps on a personal level…but when the whole of society is bankrupt, it doesn’t really matter if you are individually or not, you’ll still suffer.
Lee Reply:
November 1st, 2009 at 12:07 am
“I took this to mean a person does not have the choice to participate due to the value of the commodity.”
Let me put this another way, a ‘value proposition’ is a way of asking the question ‘is it worth the cost to me?’. For most medical procedures, that question wouldn’t enter into the decision because our bodies are one of a kind and somewhat ‘priceless’.
” the number of people who require these essential procedures is increased proportionately…without a necessary and proportionate increase in providers”
Well let’s see.. (From the OECD) the US has 1.5 specialists and just under 1 generalist per thousand people. The UK has 1.8 and 0.7, France 1.7 and 1.6, Canada 1.1 and 1.0, OECD average is 1.8 and 0.9
So, we don’t have a huge difference here. We should be able to have better waiting times than Canada. But increased waiting times are inevitable with UH. This is something acceptable to most since it is caused by someone getting the necessary healthcare they previously couldn’t.
“Interesting how you’re willing to use one aspect of foreign nationalized health care to shore up your argument while discounting another.”
Well logically, if such an argument held water then _anywhere_ with universal healthcare should have longer wait times assuming roughly the same ’supply’ density for the population.
So I can take that axiom and see if it holds true against any UH system. This is very different to say the Right taking a UH country that has poor survivability for a particular cancer or high rates of infections etc and attempting to extrapolate a general case. So I’m not guilty there.
“The sad fact is that noone can accurately predict how much of a burden free health care will have on the system”
Well I disagree. There will be some degree of unpredictability but you can still predict a certain ‘range’ of outcomes.
John Galt Reply:
November 1st, 2009 at 12:23 am
For most medical procedures, that question wouldn’t enter into the decision because our bodies are one of a kind and somewhat ‘priceless’.
The point you are missing is that when a procedure is so expensive that many people can’t afford it, then more people attempt to fill that gap by offering it at a cheaper price. This is why computers are cheap, DVD players are cheap and blue jeans are cheap.
But increased waiting times are inevitable with UH
I am glad you agree that availability of care will get worse with UH.
This is something acceptable to most since it is caused by someone getting the necessary healthcare they previously couldn’t.
This is acceptable to NONE. If you want care, go buy it. When you do, you will send a signal to those are providing it to provide more of it.
OldLefty Reply:
November 1st, 2009 at 11:08 am
John Galt said,
“The point you are missing is that when a procedure is so expensive that many people can’t afford it, then more people attempt to fill that gap by offering it at a cheaper price. This is why computers are cheap, DVD players are cheap and blue jeans are cheap.”
…………………………….
I think the point that you are missing is that, THAT works fine for goods that people can do without, but not for essential services.
Physicians are simply not going to do a 5+ hour procedure, (sometimes while wearing a lead apron , which is hell on the back), for dirt cheap, “Crazy Eddie” prices…. More and more will opt out of doing it at all, which is why “More Doctors Turning to the Business of Beauty: NYT By NATASHA SINGER, Published: November 30, 2006.
The rationing that takes place in U.S. health care NOW is unnecessary. A number of studies (notably a General Accounting Office report in 1991 and a Congressional Budget Office report in 1993) show that there is more than enough money in our health care system to serve everyone if it were spent wisely.
From Businessweek;
“Despite spending lots more per capita on health care, the U.S. is often as bad or worse than other industrialized nations in wait times”
From The Commonwealth Fund;
“Waiting is definitely a problem in the U.S., especially for basic care;
few solutions have been posited for wait times, in part, say policy experts, because the problem is rarely acknowledged in the U.S.”
Of the countries surveyed, 81% of patients in New Zealand got a same or next-day appointment for a nonroutine visit, 71% in Britain, 69% in Germany, 66% in Australia, 47% in the U.S., and 36% in Canada. Those lengthy wait times in the U.S. explain why 26% of Americans reported going to an emergency room for a condition that could have been treated by a regular doctor if available, higher than every other country surveyed.
Lee Reply:
November 1st, 2009 at 12:50 pm
“The point you are missing is that when a procedure is so expensive that many people can’t afford it, then more people attempt to fill that gap by offering it at a cheaper price. This is why computers are cheap, DVD players are cheap and blue jeans are cheap”
No, they got cheap because the technology/components to make them was no longer concentrated in the hands of a few, i.e they got commoditized. Until the day we have Android AI advanced enough that we can churn out robotic physicians/surgeons, medical treatments will never be commoditized in the same way.
I’m sure it will happen someday but not for several decades at least.
John Galt Reply:
November 1st, 2009 at 1:58 pm
No, they got cheap because the technology/components to make them was no longer concentrated in the hands of a few, i.e they got commoditized.
Agreed. And this is why heart surgery is no longer considered cutting edge. Why infections are curable with simple medicines. Why MRIs and CAT Scans are abundant [oops, only in America--not those countries with socialized medicne]. The procedures and medicines which are cutting edge today will be commoditized tomorrow. While a very few may be priced out of that care today, the benefit is that entire generations of people will be saved tomorrow. In short, society will benefit immensely.
Lee Reply:
November 1st, 2009 at 11:52 pm
“Agreed. And this is why heart surgery is no longer considered cutting edge.”
There is a difference between ‘no longer cutting edge’ and ‘commoditized’. Generally speaking, to get commoditized one of the requirements is it has to be simplfied for the masses, e.g anyone can operate a DVD player (with the possible exception of my father). But since heart surgery requires about 12 years of study at least, it will never get commoditized (at least not until robots can do it).
“Why MRIs and CAT Scans are abundant”
Interesting you mention those. Heavily overused and there is no evidence countries with a smaller scanner density actually suffer. In fact, there is a study that projects 2% of the cancers we get over the next 20 years will be caused by CT’s/X-Ray exposure, partly due to the frivolous use in this country.
Anyway, back to the point, even these are not commodities as again they require specialist training to operate.
“While a very few may be priced out of that care today, the benefit is that entire generations of people will be saved tomorrow”
Another fact for you to chew on. The CBO has stated that introduction of new technology and drugs is about 50% of the cause of increases in healthcare cost. Normally the ‘product’ cost curve is meant to go the other way!
“In short, society will benefit immensely.”
No, the evidence states not as much as you believe. But this aside, I’m not advocating publically owned health providers or drug makers. The ‘insurance provider’ on the other hand should definately not be for-profit.
October 30th, 2009 at 12:57 am
It’s one of the best online sources I’ve found on the topic that explodes the Right-wing myths about healthcare:
I’ll read it tonight.
October 30th, 2009 at 5:40 pm
Here is what happens when you ration on “politics” instead of rationing on price:
msnbc.msn.com/id/33548575/ns/health-cold_and_flu/
Didja hear about the shortages of Coke, luggage, Halloween costumes or cough medicine? You didn’t? Weird. Maybe it’s because price triggers indicate that we should make more of those things. And because the markets are “free’er” we are able to have multiple people make them, or not. Driving down the price.
If you think the government is able to balance the health needs of a nation by fiat, you should study Soviet Russia.
John Galt Reply:
October 30th, 2009 at 6:49 pm
Let’s not forget. As the nation experiences a shortage of flu vaccines for the most vulnerable, Obamas daughters have already received theirs.
Ration by price or by fiat. You choose.
John Galt Reply:
October 30th, 2009 at 11:39 pm
Just occurred to me. Washington DC may be the ONLY city in America that has enough of the vaccine. I wonder if that has anything to do with the fact that all of our government officials live in DC?
Prolly not. Never mind.
These aren’t the droids you are looking for.
October 30th, 2009 at 6:46 pm
Howl!!!
Halloween Sudden Death, I love it!
–
MSNBC is offered as basic in some areas and premium in others.
If you want to mix around numbers & facts, then let’s do that:
NBC News + MSNBC against just Fox News then NBC is #1!!!
Or you can just disregard Fox entirely from all statistics until they clean up the bad coverage and then just MSNBC on it’s own is #1!
Yay! We fixed the numbers just like The Republicans running the show at Fox like to do. (Now I feel all icky…)
–
Randal Terry is the source of much of the violent atmosphere of religious zealotry and hatred against Pro-Choice advocates.
He can say otherwise all he wants.
Randal Terry is the “son of a bitch” here. He talks a lot of “honesty” but he wouldn’t know it if it slapped him in face.
I think “demonic” would well suit in a description of him.
He just laughs while he promotes violence and domestic terrorism. He obviously thinks this is all a big joke, and nobody is laughing but him.
October 31st, 2009 at 2:31 am
No, just as I cannot afford a Learjet even if it was my single greatest need in life, neither could someone afford a procedure that’s above their spending capability. There, value has nothing to do with it, even if Learjet’s had a 4 for 1 deal, I could still not buy one..
Thread got too long; moving down here.
Lee, independent of what you change the “price” to, you are not changing the cost. Even if the Government comes in and Socializes Lear Jets to the tune of $10 a piece, you aren’t changing the fact that these jets are crazy expensive to build. And now that jets are 10 bucks, and everyone wants one, how are you going to decide who gets one?
So too with medical care. If you don’t change the underlying cost of a procedure, I don’t care what you charge or if you charge at all. You will be changing the the relationship of cost, supply and demand; and those laws of Mathematics can not be changed because some very charismatic speaker jumps up on a stumps and tries to tell you otherwise.
Can’t be done.
Lee Reply:
October 31st, 2009 at 3:51 pm
John,
Firstly, this discussion was clearly about the relationship between price and demand and I was just dispelling the assertion that healthcare has the same model of price versus demand as a typical commodity.
Getting to your point on cost though, your argument is essentially that we cannot afford to let everyone have healthcare because it would ‘cost’ too much or otherwise rely on an external subsidy of some kind. I don’t agree though.
If we made our method of payment more cost-efficient (i.e single-payer from the government) then I believe such a system is feasible. One projection from the pnhp site I mentioned suggests this would cost as little as an extra 2% income tax but admittedly I’ve no idea where/how they plucked that number from, I may look into that more but its broadly inline with other expert assessments.
John Galt Reply:
October 31st, 2009 at 10:39 pm
we cannot afford to let everyone have healthcare because it would ‘cost’ too much
Yes. You can legislate price; you can not legislate cost.
rely on an external subsidy of some kind
That is one way of coming up with the money. However, it is the point of this reader that taxing those that have in order to pay for those that don’t reduces the well being of the nation as a whole. It always has and until the human race comes upon an epiphany, it always will.
If we made our method of payment more cost-efficient (i.e single-payer from the government) then I believe such a system is feasible
This is the magic. This is where the liberal tries to convince me that we can change the law of mathematics. So far I haven’t seen evidence. All I have seen is a system of forced charity that, in the end, reduces the wealth of the nation as a whole.
Lee Reply:
November 1st, 2009 at 12:57 pm
“Yes. You can legislate price; you can not legislate cost.”
To a point this is true. However, if you create a government monopoly (e.g single-payer) then absolutely you can control cost by controlling prevailing fees for a service by forcing the fee to be the lowest acceptable versus the highest ’someone’ will pay.
“This is the magic. This is where the liberal tries to convince me that we can change the law of mathematics.”
Well its not that dramatic. The report I mentioned previously puts such a cost as about 2% more income tax than we currently pay. But again, I haven’t bothered to go through how they derived that yet. Nevertheless if other countries can do it, what’s so special about the US that we cannot?
John Galt Reply:
November 1st, 2009 at 1:48 pm
To a point this is true.
We are getting closer.
However, if you create a government monopoly (e.g single-payer) then absolutely you can control cost by controlling prevailing fees for a service by forcing the fee to be the lowest acceptable versus the highest ’someone’ will pay.
Again; no. Look at the Post Office; a monopoly. They are able to set the price of a stamp at whatever they want. But they are not able to control the COST of delivering the mail. And this is why they are running a deficit every single year. And Medicare. And Medicaid. And Social Security. And every single Government entitlement program they have ever thought of.
if other countries can do it
They can’t do it either. France’s system is bankrupt; Canada too. The UK? Screaming for health care reform. And none of those nations has a system as strong as we have. The ONLY thing that they have is care “mandated” for everyone. Forget about the fact they they are delivering care that is poorer in quality and timeliness than we do.
Lee Reply:
November 1st, 2009 at 6:26 pm
“Again; no. Look at the Post Office; a monopoly”
It’s tiring the way the poor old post office is misrepresentated and misunderstood by Conservatives.
The reason it costs so much is because of *drumroll* LEGISLATION. If we wanted to cut down to 5 days a week, we can but it needs congressional approval. The post office is actually run well but the demands we force it to supply certainly cost.
As for Medicare/Medicaid, what are you talking about! Try asking a doctor where he gets more profit from? Medicare/Medicaid are underfunded but not cost-inefficient by any stretch. In fact, the main inefficiencies in both program arise from you guessed it ‘for-profit’ private insurers.
As for the various systems, again underfunding is not the same as cost-inefficient. France pays 11% of its gdp c.f 17% here and gets Universal Healthcare. These countries have hardly been experimenting with the idea, Germany has had universal healthcare for over 100 years! No-one, not Canada, France, UK or any nation is calling for a repeal of UH, not even from their respective Right-Wing groups. That’s because it works..
Our market-based solution to healthcare is killing our economy and you actually want to suggest _more_ market involvement. This is borderline insanity..
“Forget about the fact they they are delivering care that is poorer in quality and timeliness than we do.”
In order to accept such a nonsensical conclusion, you have to ignore virtually all non-partisan, respected studies/reports and instead insist that the only ones that matter are US Right-wing funded ‘real reports’ of the truth that have little credibility to anyone else with an ounce of objectivity on the issue.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
November 1st, 2009 at 6:40 pm
Lee the conservative viewpoint is answered in your answer…the post office can’t break even due to *drumroll* legislation.
you seem to think that legislation isn’t going to be a part of this healthcare bill dreamed up and enacted by legislation.
conservatives understand this, liberals are in denial about it, even when they can point it out.
Lee Reply:
November 1st, 2009 at 8:59 pm
“Lee the conservative viewpoint is answered in your answer…the post office can’t break even due to *drumroll* legislation. ”
Look I don’t want to play ‘connect the dots’ here but that kind of silly reasoning is not very constructive. It’s like saying the military isn’t profitable or CDC or NIH etc..
In the same way we could cut some divisions to make the military cheaper, we can make cuts to the post office but in both cases we will have to compromise on what we want the service to deliver.
“you seem to think that legislation isn’t going to be a part of this healthcare bill dreamed up and enacted by legislation. ”
Certain parts of it like restrictions on how pre-existing conditions can be used etc will inevitably add cost under the for-profit model. I have not stated that I am a fan of ‘this healthcare bill’, in fact I’m not and I fear we are making a classic mistake of far too much compromise.
I’ve shifted even more to the single-payer because of the reasoning presented here:
pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php#public-option-right-direction
If it was upto me.. I’d first look for ways to kick special interests out of Washington so my Representative actually listens to me and not United Healthcare or Aetna (along with countless others).
Once the playing-field has been thus levelled, I’d start looking at all aspects rather than just payment. Certainly single-payer with a private insurance for premium service (similar to Germany) and no actual government ‘owned’ providers.
On top of that, I’d look at expanding role of non-MD medical professionals, increasing the number of medical schools, invest heavily in preventative care, incentivize healthy lifestyles, etc etc
“conservatives understand this, liberals are in denial about it”
Pot.. Kettle.. Black
EricG Reply:
November 1st, 2009 at 6:39 pm
You know what “can’t be done”?
Honest changing of the facts.
That makes you a liar and I don’t see why lying is so okay in the eyes of conservatives as long as they are making a point in their own favor.
Now, maybe you are just misinformed. But even still you are speaking in absolutes and with complete certainty so obviously it is just as bad as if you were knowingly lying because you will not review your own words for truth and for fiction.
All this spin and hogwash you are throwing out at Lee is just that, baloney on rye bread.
The procedure, let’s just say “mole removal” because that’s easy, is 20-30% more expensive here in the U.S. because we pay the insurance companies before we pay the doctor or the hospital.
End of story. The system we have drives up costs.
If you want to pay out the nose, that’s your right, but we the rest of the world is not rich as pigs and we need to get better health care at a more affordable rate.
This whole idea that we have “the best” health care system in the world is complete nonsense fed to people on the right-wing as an excuse as to why your movement doesn’t care about the public good, in this case.
These facts are not negotiable, these hard truths do not morph into the bends you lay out before us all.
The fact is we have a system of waste and greed that better suits the interests of people in high-rise buidlings than it does people working in the streets.
I don’t know about you and your fancy shoes and shiny cars, but I have to work for a living.
And all the resistence, thus far, to health care reform is nothing less than lying about the facts to suit the agenda of the insurance companies done on behalf of so-called “patriots” who also claim to be “conservative”.
Not a bit of “conservatism” found in your arguments.
You want to waste money, and then waste it some more.
All at the cost of American lives.
EricG Reply:
November 1st, 2009 at 7:34 pm
John -
I’m sure that guards at the Nazi death camps said similar things to those that begged for them to shuttle them out of their in secret.
Why worry?
We are all going to die anyway.
Who cares if terrorists fly planes into buildings.
WHO FRICKEN CARES WHEN PEOPLE DIE NEEDLESSLY! RIGHT JOHN?
October 31st, 2009 at 3:06 pm
John..Social Security is not running a deficit. The Social Security site said in 2008, they collected 2.66 something Trillion from Americans and their Employers. They were able to lend the Government 1/4 of the Surplus, to be applied to the deficit which was about 674 Billion dollars to be paid back with Interest. The way it looked to me, the Projections for the S.S. Surplus, it is the Surplus that may no not be available in 10 to 20 yrs.
EricG Reply:
November 1st, 2009 at 6:42 pm
Careful Debby, conservatives have been known to react violently to facts.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
November 1st, 2009 at 6:42 pm
SS is a ponzi scheme…one that works as long as people keep having kids. unfortunately the baby boomers didn’t hold up their end of the bargain and have enough kids to keep the scheme going.
even if they have a paper surplus this year it will dry out unless they significantly raise the tax rate and/or reduce benefits.
EricG Reply:
November 1st, 2009 at 6:45 pm
Guido -
Cut up your SS card, renouce the Post Office, burn your ID, and swear to never drive a “socialized” road ever again.
–
I promise to visit you in the mental health ward, sometimes.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
November 1st, 2009 at 6:55 pm
well…would you like to debate why SS isn’t a ponzi scheme…or are you just going to be yourself and bore us with your drivel for one more day.
Even Joel chastised you the other day…take a hint bro.
do you ever internalize what you’ve read or do you just post the first idiotic comment that comes your mind?
the Social Security program has a fatal flaw that needs to be fixed. I’ve never said we should disband the post office, only pointed out it’s deficiencies(I’ve even gone so far as say it’s worthy of being subsidized by our tax dollars) and I’ve never ever ever ever ever ever said anything about the best public road system in the world…ever.
The inanity of your psychotic ramblings astound me on a daily basis, yet you keep at it as though anyone really truly cares, and it seems to be under the delusion that you are making good and valid points to further the discussion, which astounds me twice over.
November 1st, 2009 at 2:02 pm
The Menace of the Public Option
M.C. Blakeman
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Of all the current assaults on our noble republic, perhaps none is more dangerous than the public option – specifically, the public library option.
For far too long, this menace has undermined the very foundations of our economy. While companies like Amazon and Barnes & Noble struggle valiantly each day to sell books, these communistic cabals known as libraries undercut the hard work of good corporate citizens by letting people read their books for free. How is the private sector supposed to compete with free? And just what does this public option give us? People can spend hours and hours in these dens of socialism without having to buy so much as a cappuccino. Furthermore, not only can anyone read books for free in the library, they can take them home, too. They get a simple card that can be used at any library in town. No checking on the previous condition of books they’ve read. No literacy test. Nothing. Yet, do these libertines of literature let you choose any book you want, anytime you want it? No. Have you ever tried to get the latest best-seller at a public library? They put you on a waiting list for that, my friend. And if you do ask these government apparatchiks a question about a book, they start talking your ear off, and pretty soon they’re telling you what to read.
Of course, if you break one of their petty rules and return a book late, you have to pay fines that mount grotesquely each day. Even if you die, your overdue fees keep piling up. Is that not a death tax? How long must the elderly live in fear of burdening their children with these unfair sanctions on their estates?
Don’t be fooled for a minute. Somebody has to pay for these “free” libraries, and I’ll tell you who it is, pal. Those good ol’ suckers, the American taxpayers, that’s who.
Have you ever wondered who’s really behind this public library option? And don’t you think it’s fishy that they mask their nefarious activities with benign-sounding names, like Friends of the Library? What’s their real agenda – and why do they have so many “volunteer” meetings, anyway?
No, my fellow Americans. We cannot wait until we’re all goose-stepped into a massive book checkout line. This assault on capitalism and our very way of life has got to end. Be subversive … burn your library card! Go out and buy a book!
John Galt Reply:
November 1st, 2009 at 4:20 pm
seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2010177666_library01m.html
karthiks030977 Reply:
November 1st, 2009 at 4:36 pm
Yes, lets cut out the libraries, so information isnt freely available, and kill the free market.
Lets then cutout the public roads, and cutout more things that exist to allow free markets to work efficiently.
Eventually, lets have a proper fight for survival between everybody and everybody.
November 1st, 2009 at 2:47 pm
Re; Cuts to libraries
……………
Of course!!
Whenever the government engages in massive spending on war and corporate cronyism along with massive tax cuts for the rich, the services that suffer the most, are those that benefit the least connected people.
EricG Reply:
November 1st, 2009 at 6:43 pm
That seems to be what neo-cons want.
Look at the crazed insanity Liz Cheney says.
They seriously want people to be so misinformed that no matter what spin-job they come up with nobody would be the wiser.
John Galt Reply:
November 1st, 2009 at 9:44 pm
Whenever the government engages in massive spending on war and corporate cronyism along with massive tax cuts for the rich, the services that suffer the most, are those that benefit the least connected people.
And then this one:
Yes, lets cut out the libraries, so information isnt freely available, and kill the free market.
Lets then cutout the public roads, and cutout more things that exist to allow free markets to work efficiently.
Eventually, lets have a proper fight for survival between everybody and everybody.
You are the one that posted about the library; I simply pointed out that government can’t even manage a free book service! The flippin library is in debt and only gaining speed. IN order to provide thier free service to the community, they refuse to charge a fee and in the process end up closing facilities thus reducing their service to the public.
And you want to trust these clowns with your health care.
Un-be-lee-va-ble
OldLefty Reply:
November 1st, 2009 at 10:14 pm
“they refuse to charge a fee and in the process end up closing facilities thus reducing their service to the public.”
……………..
They reduce their service to the public because the government of the last 8 years, (the “drown the government in the bath tub” crowd), squandered and plundered our treasury, and states are mandated to balance their budgets.
But by ALL means I want the clowns responsible for denying coverage to victims of spousal abuse, rape, babies who are over weight, under weight, expensive cancer pateints, or who tell clients to undergo sterlization after c section in order to remain eligible for coverage….
That you want to trust THESE clowns with your health care, actually IS believable.
John Galt Reply:
November 1st, 2009 at 10:21 pm
They reduce their service to the public because the government of the last 8 years, (the “drown the government in the bath tub” crowd), squandered and plundered our treasury, and states are mandated to balance their budgets.
Mercy Lefty – a touch out of sorts?
Seattle’s library woes have nothing to do with “the last eight years”
But by ALL means I want the clowns responsible for denying coverage
If you think that’s a problem; fine. Fix it. But don’t think that by moving responsibility to the government is going to accomplish that. And, if you do, then don’t try and sell me this snake oil remedy nonsense that this is cost efficient or will save money.
If you think that it is a government obligation, a “Capital O” Ought, then be upfront about that and call it for what it is. Honestly represent your stance that what you are advocating is, in essence, forced and mandatory charity. I am willing to wager that if Dems would simply stop trying to pull the wool over the nation’s eyes that this is actually going to SAVE money, support would jump by 10-20 points.
You simply can not make the case that this will be cheaper and/or better. You can argue that a crummier service offering sub standard care will be available to everyone, but you simply can not claim a better level or quality of care.
Any more than you are able to keep a stinking book fair open for even 40 hours a week.
OldLefty Reply:
November 2nd, 2009 at 7:54 am
John Galt said,
“Seattle’s library woes have nothing to do with “the last eight years”
……………………..
Of course it does….it was predictable and predicted.
When economic times are hard, the first thing local and national governments always seem to want to do, is cut funds for education and for essential services like hospitals, health care, children’s welfare, and so on, so that agencies and systems concerned with these things have to fight over very small pieces of a budgetary pie.
Or perhaps it has taken from Ben Franklin’s time for libraries to fall apart.
Frankly, I think the opposite can be said; “don’t try and sell me this snake oil remedy nonsense that the private sector is cost efficient or will save money in essential services,”.
This is the reason why so many actual providers and profe$sional a$$ociations support the public option OR single payer while opposition comes mostly from the insurance industry.
Support is already high except among industry lobbyists, the opposition party, (who is terrified that Democrats will get credit for a popular program), and the same low information voters who, (according to the 1994 WSJ/NBC poll said,” “Many Don’t Realize It’s Clinton Plan They Like,”
The article explained that although only 37 percent of respondents said they supported the Clinton plan, when various health care options were read to them without identifying their sponsors, 76 percent said the Clinton plan had either “a great deal of appeal” or “some appeal,” making it more popular than any of the competing proposals.
Voters had no idea what was in the Clinton plan, but they knew they didn’t like it.
That is the job of the Freedomworks and the Luntz….to make sure people are ill informed.
I think really, that YOU simply can not make the case that what we have is cheaper and/or better. We NOW a “crummier “service offering sub standard care to anyone not fortunate not enough to afford a good plan that won’t drop them when they they really need it, (after years of paying premiums).
You really want to talk about a “stinking book fair”, when your free market guys, when left to their own devices, brought us Enron, Worldcom, Global Crossing, Tyco, Anderson Accounting, Bear Sterns, Lehmann, AIG, BOA, etc, PLUS all the missing BILLIONS to private contractors in Iraq??
Have at it!
karthiks030977 Reply:
November 2nd, 2009 at 8:10 am
John Galt:
” I simply pointed out that government can’t even manage a free book service! The flippin library is in debt and only gaining speed. IN order to provide thier free service to the community, they refuse to charge a fee and in the process end up closing facilities thus reducing their service to the public.
And you want to trust these clowns with your health care
”
John: This is easily the stupidest argument I have seen you make.
1.It is the government’s responsibility to provide for the public libraries. BECAUSE….the government has denied children the right to earn their living and buy their books, and arm themselves to compete with already educated adults.
2.Once you see the above is a necessary expense “in lieu” for the children’s right to earn their living being denied, we now come to the expense issue.
Republicans keep cutting funding for the libraries. You keep cutting funds for ANYTHING, it goes in the red. This “deeper and deeper in debt” is surely the dumbest argument you have posted, dont you agree? DONT cut the funding of the libraries, they DO manage their funds quite efficiently. Modernization ALSO comes with costs, libraries cant modernize magically.
Accept you need to pay for children to get the free library in return for taking away their right to earn a living. Or, give them that right. Or, be a boor and compete against children after arming yourself with an education.
November 1st, 2009 at 4:35 pm
EARTH CALLING ALAN, EARTH CALLING ALAN—THE REPUBLICANS DON’T HAVE THE VOTES TO STOP ANY HEALTHCARE BILL. I REPEAT, THE REPUBLICANS DON’T HAVE THE VOTES TO STOP ANY HEALTHCARE BILL.
IT IS THE DEMOCRATS ALAN. WAKE UP AND GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT. IT IS THE DEMOCRATS SAYING NO.
Sheeessssshhh!!! And I thought you could at least show a little honesty.
November 2nd, 2009 at 9:17 am