Romney: Republicans ‘Believe In Allowing People To Have Choice In Their Health Care’ — Except A Public Option
Romney: Republicans ‘Believe In Allowing People To Have Choice In Their Health Care’ — Except A Public Option
Today on NBC’s Meet the Press, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney bristled at criticisms that Republicans don’t have any ideas. “We have a health care plan. … We believe in allowing people to have choice in their health care,” he said.
However, despite this belief in “choice,” a few minutes later Romney said that allowing people to choose a public option is out of the question:
One state in America, my state, was able to put into place a plan that got everybody health insurance. And it did not require a public government insurance company. That’s the last thing America needs. You know exactly what it is.
President Obama, when he was campaigning, said he wanted a single-payer system. That’s what it would lead to. He would subsidize this over time. It would become larger and larger, drive the private options out of the health care industry.
Watch it:
Obama is not trying to create a single-payer system. In 2003, Obama did say, “I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer, universal health-care program.” However, he admitted that such a system was unrealistic in the United States. Since that time, he has reiterated his belief that a single-payer system would be unworkable in America. From an online town hall discussion on March 26:
And so what evolved in America was an employer-based system. It may not be the best system if we were designing it from scratch. But that’s what everybody is accustomed to. That’s what everybody is used to. It works for a lot of Americans. And so I don’t think the best way to fix our health care system is to suddenly completely scrap what everybody is accustomed to and the vast majority of people already have. Rather, what I think we should do is to build on the system that we have and fill some of these gaps.
So why are Republicans so afraid of giving the public one more option in health care, if they are supposedly all about “choice”? In his press conference last week, Obama addressed this hypocrisy:
Why would it [a public option] drive private insurers out of business? If private insurers say that the marketplace provides the best quality health care, if they tell us that they’re offering a good deal, then why is it that the government — which they say can’t run anything — suddenly is going to drive them out of business? That’s not logical.
In fact, one of the reasons that Obama has said a public option is so important is that it will “give people a broader range of choices and inject competition into the health care market so that force waste out of the system and keep the insurance companies honest.” The Wonk Room’s Igor Volsky has put together a document debunking the myths surrounding the public option here.
Transcript:
ROMNEY: Listen Mr. Axelrod, you’re wrong when you say we don’t have ideas. We have a health care plan. You look at Wyden-Bennett that a number of Republicans think is a very good health care plan, one that we support. Take a look at that one. We believe in allowing people to have choice in their health care. [...]
GREGORY: Governor?
ROMNEY: Absolutely right. We have a model that works. One state in America, my state, was able to put into place a plan that got everybody health insurance. And it did not require a public government insurance company. That’s the last thing America needs. You know exactly what it is.
President Obama, when he was campaigning, said he wanted a single-payer system. That’s what it would lead to. He would subsidize this over time. It would become larger and larger, drive the private options out of the health care industry. It would be just disastrous for health care in this country, and the right way to proceed is to reform health care. That we can do as we did it in Massachusetts, as Wyden-Bennett is proposing doing it at the national level. We can do it for the nation, we can get everybody insured, we can get the cost of health care down, but we don’t have to have government insurance and government running health care to get that done.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Yes, Mittens, I know EXACTLY what it is.
A gravy train for your corporate masters. And it’s about to end. Please don’t cry on the tee vee, Mittster. You’ll make us all sad.
June 28th, 2009 at 12:15 pmSorry, but Obama’s push is actually for SINGLE PAYER health care, ala Canada, U.K., etc.
Anything else you read or hear is a SMOKESCREEN for his true agenda.
And none of you need to start giving me grief… I have gone back and listened to all his public speeches on health care. Some of these weren’t covered very well by the alphabet soup networks, but I have heard it from HIS OEN MOUTH.
Single Payer. The end of private insurance companies.
June 28th, 2009 at 12:19 pmNice retort.
June 28th, 2009 at 12:20 pmIf the government supsidizes the public option it creates an artificial advantage for the public option. The same is true if you consider that the government isn’t required to turn a profit; as private providers would have to; to remain viable.
The idea is that government could use that advantage to eventually drive the private providers out of business, to then enjoy a monopoly in providing healthcare.
In essence, we would eventually lose the private option.
June 28th, 2009 at 12:22 pmWhen Romney means “choice” he is really talking about choosing amongst several bloated, increasingly expensive, administrative-heavy, and Republican-sponsoring-lobbyist-dependent Health Insurance programs.
June 28th, 2009 at 12:24 pmTim Vaculik sed:
“…I have heard it from HIS OEN MOUTH.
Single Payer. The end of private insurance companies.”
Horseshit. Show us all when and where Obama said HE WOULD IMPLEMENT A SINGLE PAYER FEDERALLY-FUNDED HEALTH PROGRAM. Show us.
It’s a pipe dream. Obama is even facillating on whether there’ll be a public insurance option. Maybe he’s playing that 12-dimensional chess game? I seriously doubt it.
We will be lucky to see the public option, and the way it’s coming about, we’re supposed to FEEL lucky, too. And: Nothing would please me more than to see insurance companies legally ousted from the health care business. Nothing squeezes more uselessly spent dollars from our health care system than they do. And nothing cheats honest citizens out of what they paid for more than they do. They send more people into bankruptcy than anything else. Curse them forever, and the idiot ’statesmen’ who actually legalized this massive theft.
June 28th, 2009 at 12:27 pmFolks, this health care initiative by Obama and the Democrats is the next horror story we’ll be facing after the “climate bill.”
What the advocates of single payer want to do will DESTROY the best health care system in the WORLD.
Now I know we have problems with the DELIVERY of health care, but government is NOT the answer.
Just look at the myriad of problems the single payer systems in Canada, the U.K., etc., are having.
Single payer, government dictated health care ALWAYS produces shortages and sub-standard care.
If we go with this, where will Canadians go when they need vital procedures they wait 6-9 MONTHS for in their own country? In a number of well-documented cases they have DI
June 28th, 2009 at 12:30 pmED waiting for something they could’ve gotten under our system in a matter of DAYS.
And: Curse every doctor who ever got into medicine first and foremost to MAKE MONEY. Doctors? Rich? Just because they keep you healthy and occasionally save your life?
Do firefighters and police officers get rich saving your life? No. They’re prime examples of SOCIALISM, though.
We’re in for some change, but I seriously doubt Obama will actually give it to us. I still like him…but he’s up against some heavy odds, heavy hitters, and the FOX News network, to boot.
June 28th, 2009 at 12:30 pmSo it is obvious now that the Republican’s intent is to equate the “public option” with “single payer”.
This might actually gain some traction with a lot of people who are not particularly paying attention. However, it is obfuscation of the highest order and not meant to further the debate or solve the health care crisis.
Shame on anyone who uses this argument.
June 28th, 2009 at 12:31 pmThe repugs all seem to want competition except when it comes to health care — then they don’t want anything to interfere with the profit-driven insurance companies gouging the public while reducing care.
June 28th, 2009 at 12:32 pmThis is all about preservation of the status quo — unsustainable except for the very wealthy who can afford whatever they want, wherever it is.
Okay, Tim, I think I misunderstood your post here. I’m sorry I yelled at you (in virtual print) in a knee-jerk response.
I still stand by my own more cynical statements. Obama is a lot more ‘moderate’, that is (to me), conservative than that.
I don’t know what the best thing is. I do know what is bad about what we have now. And it pisses me off. Obviously…
June 28th, 2009 at 12:32 pmthe FOX News network
You mean the one that is supposedly “irrelevant?
June 28th, 2009 at 12:32 pmDaddy-O,
Sorry, I can’t help it if you always listen to only the news outlets that don’t do good reporting.
Do your own D%*# homework.
June 28th, 2009 at 12:33 pmBased on what Brigham Young is saying here, there is no difference between the Repig ideas and Barack’s idea. After all, Barack’s plan has the option for people to make their own choice about health care. I wonder why Brigham Young failed to mention that this morning?
June 28th, 2009 at 12:34 pmArt,
Like I said: the so-called public option is by their own admission just an interim STEP on the path to their true destination: SINGLE PAYER.
Pay attention to what they say!
June 28th, 2009 at 12:34 pmWell, Tim, can’t you find a link with those quotes that prove what you claim? YOU’RE the one who claims Obama is ’secretly’ going to give us European style health care.
And I’m not going to get snarky at you in response. I made a mistake already, and I don’t want to start a fight with you at all. All I’m asking is: If you know he said it, there’s a record of it SOMEWHERE on the vast Internets Tubes, more than likely. All I’m asking is that you back up your own claim, and not demand that I do it for you.
Okay?
June 28th, 2009 at 12:35 pmIt’s the same philosophy previously expressed by Prejean about gay marriage.
June 28th, 2009 at 12:36 pmThe GOP believes in choice, so long as the only choice available is the one that they choose.
backup says:
government isn’t required to turn a profit; as private providers would have to; to remain viable.
The idea is that government could use that advantage to eventually drive the private providers out of business, to then enjoy a monopoly in providing healthcare.
By that logic, the US Postal Service should have driven UPS and Fed Ex out of business by now. Or cheap clean tap water delivered to everyone’s home by government run utilities should have closed down Coca-Cola’s bottled water division.
June 28th, 2009 at 12:36 pmWe are the ONLY nation in the industrialized world that does not offer universal health care to its citizens — the only one.
June 28th, 2009 at 12:37 pmWe rank 37th in health statistics (longevity, births, general health).
Isn’t that enough for those opposed to this initial step toward universal health care to at least think about it instead of the knee-jerk reaction evoked by the repugs and their scare tactics.
Our health care is NOT THE BEST IN THE WORLD as they falsely claim. Our health care is not even in the top ten, or top twenty or top thirty!!
Our economy needs to get this off the backs of the people, the workers and off the backs of their employers.
Daddy-O,
No problem. No offense taken.
June 28th, 2009 at 12:38 pmTim–thanks for being the voice behind all those businesses, employees and citizens who want to keep paying more and more for their Health Insurance while getting less and less in terms of service. It’s just like the “teabaggers” who went out to protest against tax increases for Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity (at the same time they were getting a tax break from Obama).
June 28th, 2009 at 12:38 pmart. that’s a good point.
June 28th, 2009 at 12:39 pmMarie,
Be care ful which statistics you give credence to with respect to the level of health and the delivery of health care between various countries.
You have to understand the different variables involved. People use statistics all the time to promote their agenda, while the real truth is often not accurately portrayed.
I understand what you are getting at, though. I agree we have problems in our system, but on balance it is still the best in the world. If it weren’t, why do people come here from all over the world for care?
June 28th, 2009 at 12:41 pm.
So, it’s a public choice with no public option?
.
June 28th, 2009 at 12:42 pm“I won’t raise your taxes!” obama
June 28th, 2009 at 12:43 pmYa, just like private school has been driven out by the great public schools. Just like UPS and FedEx have been driven out by the first class postage stamp.
If the free market approach worked, wouldn’t we have the lowest health costs in the world instead of the highest, and be No.1 instead of 37?
June 28th, 2009 at 12:44 pmRight-wing scare tactics regarding the horror of “single payer” would be a lot more effective if single-payer had proven to be, y’know… scary in the places it’s been implemented.
But those places tend to have longer-living and healthier populations, and greater satisfaction with health care delivery than our own.
June 28th, 2009 at 12:45 pmNow the insurance companies take a big part of the health care dollars. They make money off your illness. They have administrators that make decisions about what benefits you get or don’t get. With a public option there will still be administrators making decisions, but those administrators will be responsible to a political structure. If there are problems elected representatives will be available to help. With insurance companies you have no way to influence there decisions, they are not responsible to the policy holder they are responsible to the stock holders and the corporate board. Now people may say you can use competition within the industry to and take a policy from another company, but if you have an existing condition, that is not an option, you would never be able to switch companies. You are stuck with the insurance companies decisions. I would rather depend on the decisions of someone I can influence, rather than someone I cannot.
June 28th, 2009 at 12:46 pmAbove the Clouds. I forget who did the recent interview, but in it, Obama said this:
Most of the tea party participants where complaining about the debt and the deficit spending.
If those issues also keep President Obama awake at night, maybe the concerns of those at the tea party weren’t really due to ignorance or partisanship.
Why not cut them some slack?
June 28th, 2009 at 12:47 pmTim.
I don’t agree that the health care delivery system will change. Only the way it would be paid for.
For example, I have a good health plan now but there were times I’d have to wait several months to see my doctor. Again, it has nothing to do with my health plan, but with the logistics of the doctor’s schedule.
We really have to remember that government is not the problem.
Bad government is the problem.
June 28th, 2009 at 12:48 pmAbove the Clouds,
Well, I’m paying more these days, but not terribly so. I still get the same or better services for what I have to pay.
What you and others may not fully realize is the fact that the quality of health care we enjoy in this country DOES cost a lot as it must to drive innovation, research, risk-taking and the incentive for people to go into medicine in the first place!
This can be illustrated by studying the difference between two professions in the U.K., for example. Over there, being a doctor is just a government job that doesn’t require the level of study and practice it does here. It’s not a very prestigious occupation and the level of salaries doctors earn reflects this. Conversely, lawyers in the U.K. are much more highly thought of than doctors and they make the dough!
Now look at our own country. Whon do you trust and respect more: lawyers or doctors? Look at what it takes to become a doctor here. Look at the risks and expense.
June 28th, 2009 at 12:49 pmSingle Payer is the answer to this problem. Put the thieves of the healthcare for profit out of business forever. Let them steal from republicans but healthcare is not there for them to use as a way to pad their pockets. Mitt Romney proves that his not ready for prime time and he is so out of touch he should get a new hairdo.
June 28th, 2009 at 12:50 pmWe’ll be cae ful of them, Timmeh.
Tell us, how do you propose comparing systems regarding their effectiveness in delivering treatment, unless we do it statistically?
Perhaps you have some horror-filled anecdotes on which you’d like to base your arguments?
Or will you be content to simply insist that any public option, let alone single-payer, would mean the death of our health care delivery infrastructure?
‘Cause I’m finding that argument extremely compelling, lemme tell ya.
June 28th, 2009 at 12:50 pmTP, 12 out of 30 comments are right wing lying trolls. Do you know how many progressives are not posting here because of the abundance of the stupidity they’re flinging around. Or don’t you care?
June 28th, 2009 at 12:51 pmSure, b-cup; let’s cut them some slack based on the very best interpretation and framing of the intentions of folks who showed no concern for the deficits or the debt when a Republican was responsible for accumulating them.
Let’s assume that their concerns are not based in partisan maneuvering, despite all the evidence pointing to this conclusion.
June 28th, 2009 at 12:55 pmI pay $12.5K for my health insurance a year and I just got a notice that I can not longer go to Walgreen’s to get my subscriptions I have to mail order them for the same price. But I’ll now have to pay for three months at a time instead of one month. And if I want to get brand name instead of generic I used to have to only pay $25 but now I’ll have to pay the complete difference in costs. Choice my a$$.
June 28th, 2009 at 12:56 pmRepublicans just love corporate greed; why, it makes their little world spin round and round; they love to see the Dollar Sign rising in the East every morning.
June 28th, 2009 at 12:57 pmRepublican health care choices for:
Option A. Pay through the nose.
Option B. Pay an arm and a leg.
Note: with either choice you’ll receive the crappiest care possible of any developed nation unless you are denied benefits for having preexisting conditions, such as being born poor.
June 28th, 2009 at 12:58 pmTim, You say my statistics are flawed, but yet you claim that we have the best system in the world — based on what?
June 28th, 2009 at 12:58 pmI don’t deny there are some people who come here for an elective procedure. Elective procedures are prioritized in other countries.
In this country, a person can get emergency care as well as elective care, but can and do go bankrupt in the end. Also, in our country, an insurance clerk determines what procedure is allowable, and permission must be obtained.
If an American has a need to see a specialist, he can’t get an appointment tomorrow — he must wait.
Art–you’re wrong–it’s it’s not “bad” government, it’s REPUBLICAN government that people don’t trust.
June 28th, 2009 at 12:59 pmHow about a RELIABLE link you lying sack of cr@p.
June 28th, 2009 at 12:59 pmO/T: Loved to sample those Sunday morning corporate television “news” shows and see right-wing pundits shucking and jiving, twisting and turning, whining and lyin’, trying to defend the utter hyprocisy (sic) of Governor Sanford (R – Argentina) and his two sets of family values, because he has two families, oops…
June 28th, 2009 at 1:01 pmThe Stormin’ Mormon and the rest of that tone-deaf bunch of repiggies should not even be considered eligible for public office. Why even bother listening to that repiggie trash anymore?
Given that they lost so vastly in the November elections, why are those SOB’s all over the cable news stations? They seem to outnumber progressive voices at a 4 to 1 ratio.
June 28th, 2009 at 1:01 pmOne thing you’re sure not to hear from a republican talking about health care is ‘I’m pro-life’. It’s always interesting how that term is absent from this debate.
June 28th, 2009 at 1:04 pm“One state in America, my state, was able to put into place a plan that got everybody health insurance. And it did not require a public government insurance company. That’s the last thing America needs. You know exactly what it is”.
Yes, it’s called The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, which I dont care what you say publicly, or what some “change” your leader had some years ago, believes that blacks are a cursed people and cannot enter the kingdom of heaven except as servants. You church runs various corporations and you provide “assistance” to your own so that they dont have to use welfare, but you and the leaders are receiving corporate welfare.
If Mr. Romney believes that the religious right is behind him, wait until he tries to run for POTUS again, your being used you idiot.
RIP
June 28th, 2009 at 1:04 pmSGT Stephen R. Sherman
C CO 1-5 IN (STRYKER)
KIA 3 Feb 2005
Mosul, Iraq
Somewhat on topic.
A Group of Paleantologist recently took a trip to the “Creation Museum” while visiting for a conference nearby in Kentucky.
No glowing appraisels were recieved. Seems they were affronted with the appalling manner in which these “Creationist” make such unsubstantiated attacks against scientific proof.
The kicker is this one..
“The critique of scientists even extends to the gift shop, where among the DVDs for sale is one entitled, “The Cure for a Culture in Crisis: It doesn’t take a Ph.D.”
It all had Wednesday’s visitors shaking their heads.
“Faith is one thing,” said Mark Terry, a high school science teacher from Seattle, “but when it comes to their science statements, they’re completely off the wall.” – Jeffrey McMurray AP
In bold (by me) is the quintisential statement that defines the wingnuttery from the far right.
June 28th, 2009 at 1:11 pmI assume you’re talking about the World Heath Organizations rankings from 2000:
http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html
I looked into it and there are a few things about that study.
First of all, they stopped doing the study after 2000, because people (rightly) question how they came to the rankings. And the WHO didn’t have a strong enough position to continue to justify their methodology. I’ll give you an example:
If you go to the WHO website and call up, for example Oman (which is ranked 8th in the survey) you find these statistics:
http://www.who.int/countries/omn/en/
Then compare them to the U.S. (which was ranked 37th in the study):
http://www.who.int/countries/usa/en/
Okay. From the same organization that ranks Oman 8th and the U.S. 37th, we find that:
Life expectancy for Oman is 72 men and 77 women; while the U.S. life expectancy is 75 for men and 80 for women.
Probability of dying before age 5; 11 out of 1000 in Oman and 8 out of 1000 in the U.S.
Probability of dying between 15 and 60; 160 out of 1000 for men, 90 out of 1000 for women. In the U.S.; 137 out of 1000 for men and 80 out of 1000 for women.
Healthy life expectancy at birth. In Oman; 63 for men and 65 for women. In the U.S.; 67 for men and 71 for women.
Check it out. Those are all WHO stats.
So, how does Oman get ranked much higher than the U.S. although the objective stats are significantly better in the U.S. than in Oman?
Because they are considering factors that have nothing to do with health. They factor in healthcare expenditures, but leave the impression that even tough we spend a lot on healthcare, our service is relatively poor in comparison to the rest of the world. That’s not accurate.
Most people that use the WHO rankings to criticize U.S. healthcare are either unaware of the subjective factors that have gone into the rankings or discount them to promote governmental control.
June 28th, 2009 at 1:12 pmI love it when Americans talk about Canadian healthcare with authority. I’m 47, living in Canada. Never in my family’s history has anyone been denied quick, sensible healthcare. If you need to make an appt to see your doctor it will take some time as all scheduling does, but if you are in an emergency situation there are facilities for that. Americans are quick to point out that some Canadians travel south for care but ignore the fact that many Americans come to Canada for prescription drugs.
If govt healthcare is so bad, why is it good enough for your politicians & veterans?
June 28th, 2009 at 1:14 pmPlease provide specific examples in the last 6 months of when and where Barack has “raised taxes.” Links to legislation or presidential executive orders mandating the increase in taxes would be much appreciated.
June 28th, 2009 at 1:15 pmMitt Romney is full of s..t!!! I live in Massachusetts and his “mandatory health care” is not working at all. It was crafted so that the insurance companies got to make even more money and to refuse care. There are thousands of people who are paying for this mandated care of his who cannot see a doctor because the doctors refuse to take these people as patients……and believe me, they are not all welfare recipients either….these are people who have lost well paying jobs in the private sector because of the economy.
Romney was a horrible governor who left Massachusett’s with a 2 billion dollar deficit….he’s a chameleon…he’s lied about his political credentials so much, that he doesn’t know what he is….when he ran for governor he was prochoice and for gay rights, etc., now he sees an opportunity he’s suddenly a conservative.
I wouldn’t trust him to tell me water was wet. I can’t stand him….he’s a phoney.
June 28th, 2009 at 1:17 pmTim V, you have been reading and watching to much Faux news and other Reich Wing crap.People in Canada and Europe and the rest of the world all have a health care system that treats everyone the same, rich or poor, first come first served.Please document a case where someone has died while waiting for medical care and stop listening to people like Rick Scott who has ripped off our Medicare system for years and payed a $1.7 billion fine and still says he is innocent and Luntz is no better because all he does is SHILL for the health care industry.Our current health care system spends more than twice as anyone else due to 30 percent overhead for CEO salaries and administrative cost which medicare can do for a 2 to 3 percent overhead and no middle man taking his cut.Single payer works, it`s just people like you that think it`s a privilege and not a right.
June 28th, 2009 at 1:19 pmHere’s a link that describes some of the problems with the World Health Organization survey that many point to, in order to justify changing our system.
I’ll save those that aren’t interesting in considering an opposing view by stating up front, the source is from the Cato Institute. But, the information within the article highlights how the WHO came to it’s rankings. For that, it’s got some merit.
Check it out:
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9259
June 28th, 2009 at 1:22 pmFrom the link:
June 28th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
They are all about choice, the choice that has the Insurance and Drug Corporation approval. It is really a disgrace, to see our leaders argue about the money, when it comes to the wellfare of the people. This countrys best asset is its people, what better way to promote and care for this asset than a simple single payer plan for all. I beleive it is a consitutional right, or it should be. Leaders like Rommney(R-cracker) and Graham(R-cracker) are out of touch or it could be there just a little touched
June 28th, 2009 at 1:24 pmand this (last one).
June 28th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
There are many reasons to take rankings of any sort with a grain of salt, but the service here is only that good when you can afford it or when you’re insurance decides to cover it. Our health care costs are among the highest in the world, but shouldn’t the market-based idea lead us to the best quality at the lowest price?
June 28th, 2009 at 1:34 pmAh so! The Republican-dictated choice Mitt meant, eh?
June 28th, 2009 at 1:35 pmI have a private for-profit health insurance plan. I don’t get to choose my doctor. I have to choose one from their list of approved doctors. My neighbor who is on Medicare can choose any doctor she wants. What’s up with that?
June 28th, 2009 at 1:41 pmTim Vaculik Says:
Single Payer. The end of private insurance companies.
Good. Then we will be like every other industrialized nation and we will be able to compete with them better. I am ashamed of living in a country that thinks health care is a privilege and not a right. My health and the health of my fellow citizens should not be part of a for-profit equation. As long as it is, we the patients will suffer.
June 28th, 2009 at 1:42 pmMore doom and gloom from the tipsy teabaggers. It doesn’t appear Medicare has harm the greedy hospitals. In fact the current system harms patients more. I’d paid $10 for a used bottle of peroxide, $5 bucks for a chuck and I know of many more people with the same type of stories.
I believe the hospital industry has a emergency care goldmine.
Watch Sicko, sicko.
Why are the repugs on this planet if they hate it so much? They don’t like the people, the land, the water, the air and advancement/change.
June 28th, 2009 at 1:42 pmAT least this administration is trying to make some sort of improvement to the system. After 8 years of the Bush administration and the Republican Congress from 1994 to 2006 doing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to change the system or make it better (except for the insurance companies and the FOR PROFIT health care providers) frankly, I welcome any sort of movement on the issue.
To me, it is simply unconscionable that corporations should be making a profit by denying people life-saving procedures.
June 28th, 2009 at 1:46 pmMike Hunt Says:
Republicans Love Facts Says:
“I won’t raise your taxes!” obama
Please provide specific examples in the last 6 months of when and where Barack has “raised taxes.” Links to legislation or presidential executive orders mandating the increase in taxes would be much appreciated.
And it will come back and tell you that it’s up to you to prove it wrong, it’s not up to it to prove it’s right. That’s the Republic mantra. I’m right unless you can prove me wrong.
June 28th, 2009 at 1:47 pmGame of Life Says:
Why are the repugs on this planet if they hate it so much? They don’t like the people, the land, the water, the air and advancement/change.
I’m guessing it’s the money, it soo has them by the balls.
June 28th, 2009 at 1:48 pmAlthough it is true that we Canadians may have to wait longer for some elective surgery, our basic heath care is on par with America.
If I need to visit my primary care physician,the wait is generally a matter of a few days. If it is urgent my doctor will see me the next day. Those who feel it necessary to see a physician the same day have to option of visiting a Walk in Clinic and will be seen in the matter of hours.
Canada spends less than half per-capita on health care and every single Canadian has full coverage and does so with no out of pocket expenses.
The waiting time for elective surgery in my Province (Ontario) has been reduced by half in the last five years. It is true that we do wait longer for some services such as MRI but if one is willing to be flexible, they can go on standby and take the place of a last minute cancellation.
During the last four years I have had three major surgical procedures, two for rotator cuff injuries and one for a detached retina.
June 28th, 2009 at 1:49 pmIn the case of the eye injury, I was immediate hospitalized and had surgery within 24 hours. The shoulder surgery did require the wait of a month because of course they were neither life threatening or exasperated by a short wait. In fact for the first injury I elected to wait longer because of a scheduling issue at work.
Oh yeah let me explain the harm — 20% not paid by medicare.
June 28th, 2009 at 1:50 pm.
Bovine, Tim, Fact Lover, Backedup…
… These are T.P. regulars?
… R E A L L Y?
.
June 28th, 2009 at 1:50 pmDoodlebug Shayne Says:
TP, 12 out of 30 comments are right wing lying trolls. Do you know how many progressives are not posting here because of the abundance of the stupidity they’re flinging around. Or don’t you care?
It appears that they don’t care. This site has become a vast wasteland of troll droppings.
June 28th, 2009 at 1:50 pm.
I WANT CONGRESS-CARE…
… OR …
I want Congress to have the level of health coverage that I can afford…
… Which, currently, is none!
.
June 28th, 2009 at 1:52 pmWhat’s his name again ? mitt ? Hell, throw a fastball at him.
As long as money continues to control the government I’m guessing the people will continue to get the short end of the stick.
June 28th, 2009 at 1:52 pmKeith H. Says:
Game of Life Says:
Why are the repugs on this planet if they hate it so much? They don’t like the people, the land, the water, the air and advancement/change.
I’m guessing it’s the money, it soo has them by the balls.
Gawd, how shallow, useless and pathetic.
June 28th, 2009 at 1:54 pmReggie Says:
In the case of the eye injury, I was immediate hospitalized and had surgery within 24 hours. The shoulder surgery did require the wait of a month because of course they were neither life threatening or exasperated by a short wait. In fact for the first injury I elected to wait longer because of a scheduling issue at work.
All of your wait times seem to be less than our wait time here. If I needed surgery that was not life threatening, I would have to wait several months under my for-profit health insurance plan. If I made an appointment to see my physician, one that was not an emergency, I would have to wait a couple of weeks to get in.
That’s what I don’t get. All the things the Republics are warning us will happen under a single payer or public option plan are already happening to us under our for-profit health insurance plans. The real difference is that I won’t have to declare bankruptcy if I have a real medical emergency under a public plan.
June 28th, 2009 at 1:55 pmWhy argue with the trolls? Just keep posting your thoughts, especially when you know that these thoughts will piss off the repiggie trolls.
I have an idea of what FREEMARKETLIBERAL posts, but I just skip over his crap, and I never enter into any dialogue with him.
June 28th, 2009 at 1:56 pm.
It would seem the “Right to Life” club would be FOR standardized health care for all people…
… Oh. I forgot. The “Right to Life” ends after birth.
.
June 28th, 2009 at 1:56 pmIf the objective is the general “health” and welfare of the American people and the economic advantages gained by greed and oppression of corporate monopolies, “single-payer” is the best means for accomplishing that objection. If the objective is to protect the “profits” of health insurance, pharmaceutical and medical technology companies, anything but “single-payer” is desirable.
Single-payer health care does not necessarily mean that the government or some government agency delivers or controls health care services. It may pay for health professionals and services that are delivered in either private or public sector settings according to the needs and wishes of the patient and his or her doctor.
“Single-payer is one alternative proposed for health care reform in the United States, and as such, has been the subject of active political debate for decades.
A national health insurance system, though not necessarily a single-payer system, is the reform proposal that has the greatest level of support amongst medical professionals and the general public, though some in Congress and the health insurance industry have tried to deflect calls for such reform by insisting that the U.S. should adopt a “uniquely American solution” that would protect the profits of private insurers, thus ruling out a single-payer system.”
Those advocating the introduction of single payer health care in the United States do so on several grounds most of which address problems that are seen to be inherent in the current system where there are multiple insurers.
Balancing lifetime risks and expenditures – The purpose of health insurance is to balance risk. With Single payer health care it is possible to balance risk across a lifetime of contributions to the single fund. This is important because health care demands tend to rise as people get older, but their earnings capacity is usually greater when they are younger and more productive. Single payer health care systems therefore balance premiums or contributions much more towards higher contributions when earnings are high and lower contributions when earnings are less, even though expenditures may be very high. This is usually achieved by linking the contribution to salary. Private health insurance however tends only to balance risks year on year. Thus younger people can be insured at very low rates because they tend to attract lower risks whereas older and sicker people are penalized through pricing. Because there are many smaller pools in private insurance, insurance companies are forced to price in this way in order to protect their own interests. Lifetime balancing of risks and expenditures are not usually possible with private insurance.
Lower administrative costs – Proponents of health care reform argue that moving to a single-payer system would reallocate the money currently wasted on the administrative overhead required to run the hundreds of insurance companies in the U.S. An often-cited study by Harvard Medical School and the Canadian Institute for Health Information determined that some 30 percent of U.S. health care dollars, or more than $1,000 per person per year, went to health care administrative costs. Insurance companies dispute this figure, citing an industry average of 15 percent within their industry for administrative expenses and profits. However, health care providers must also absorb the cost of staff time for dealing with the insurance companies, which adds to the cost of the insurance-based system. Some countries such as Taiwan have introduced Single Payer system in which the entire cost rebate system absorbs less than 2 per cent of health care costs.
Tackling of moral hazard – Moral hazard arises when an individual or institution does not bear the full consequences of its actions, and therefore has a tendency to act less carefully than it otherwise would, leaving another party to bear some responsibility for the consequences of those actions. In the medical sphere, medical practitioners are sometimes accused of using the insured person’s medical insurance to insure themselves against medical malpractice by doing more tests than are strictly necessary. This increases the overall cost of health insurance. Some insured people may ask an insurance provider to pay for the cost of medical treatment that they would not have chosen to pay for themselves. Some medical providers, keen to recoup their investment on medical technologies such as medical scanners, may recoup their investment by recommending scans which may not be strictly necessary. Whether single payer systems avoid problems of moral hazard rather depends on how the system is organized.
Avoid problems associated with medical underwriting – premium loading, caps and exclusions – When there are multiple insurers competing for business, medical underwriting protects insurers from adverse selection. Medical underwriters scrutinize applications for health care and apply differential conditions to policies according to the risk associated with the individual. Competing private health insurers naturally seek to attract young and healthy patients whilst simultaneously seeking to avoid or price out the sick and elderly. These processes go against the general principle of health insurance which is that the healthy pay for the health care needs of the sick and that persons pay into insurance when they are young so that they can be assured of receiving health care when they are old. Some call this process “cherry picking” A single-payer insurer would not be faced with the competitive pressures to engage in medical underwriting practices which negate the benefit of insurance. With single-payer, the entire population would insure itself, ensuring that the costs of meeting the medical insurance of the sick was paid for by the healthy and that the young would be compelled to contribute to an insurance scheme at a rate that ensures that the care they may need when they become old will be available to them.
Introduce Universal health care – Nearly 45 million Americans, about 15 percent of the population, lacked health insurance in 2005. The lack of universal coverage contributes to another flaw in the current U.S. health care system: on most dimensions of performance, it underperforms relative to other industrialized countries. In a 2007 comparison by the Commonwealth Fund of health care in the U.S. with that of Germany, Britain, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada, the U.S. ranked last on measures of quality, access, efficiency, equity, and outcomes.
Avoid medical bankruptcies – A recent Harvard University study found that medical bills are a leading cause of bankruptcy in the United States. The study found that many declaring bankruptcy were part of the middle class and were employed before they became ill, but had lost their health insurance by the time they declared bankruptcy and that about 2 million Americans live in families that have experienced medical bankruptcy. In the U.S., people leaving a job can continue with their former employer’s health insurance plan under the COBRA but usually at a rate that is double what the employee paid while employed, and only for a limited time. When an employer-insured person loses a job due to illness and does not have sufficient resources to continue to pay for COBRA health insurance, they also lose their health insurance coverage. A single payer system, it is argued, would avoid medical bankruptcy, which is almost unknown in other advanced western industrial countries.
Encourage preventative medicine – People often discover that although their doctors recommend screening and other forms of prevention, they find that their insurance company does not reimburse the cost of the procedure. Some have argued that it is not in the interests of the insurer to go looking for problems that could result in a medical claim which, if delayed until the problem becomes serious, would most likely fall upon a different insurer. A single-insurer however would be incentivized to discover problems earlier because they will be cheaper to deal with in the long run if the cost of screening is cost effective.
June 28th, 2009 at 1:57 pmhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-payer_health_insurance
.
Q U E S T I O N:
If Congress had to pay their medical expenses ‘out-of-pocket’…
… 10:1 they’d be the first to fight to lower the costs of Big Pharma.
NO?
.
June 28th, 2009 at 1:59 pmSo, timmy and b-cup, have either of you ever lived anywhere else besides America? If not , how the hell do you know what system of healthcare is better? I lived in England for six years, and I meet nobody who would give up their healthcare system for anything like ours. What they can’t understand is for the richest country in the world why we are so stupid. Nobody I knew ever worried about their healthcare.
June 28th, 2009 at 2:01 pmthe reason you question the quality of American healthcare (in part) is because efforts like the WHO rankings have given an inaccurate impression that our quality ranks 37th. That’s not accurate.
It’s okay to highlight that Americans spend more. That’s an honest assessment. But, to use that high per capita expenditure (along with other arbitrary measures) to heavily impact rankings to give a false impression of poor quality, is not.
It’s like saying that Guatemala has a better military than the U.S. when you factor in the spending per capita: (when the U.S. spends 650 billion; 4,000 times Guatemala’s 170 million).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures
June 28th, 2009 at 2:02 pmRight wing trolls are not authorities on anything. What they say is a repeat of talking points from the RNC and healthcare industry. These people listen to drug addicts on the AM dial and watch a phony television network which was initiated to give right wingers an alternate reality because facts and truth never has served them well. Ignore trolls, they are not very smart or they wouldn’t be trolls.
June 28th, 2009 at 2:05 pmangels. Each system has it’s drawbacks and benefits.
you see the benefits of the English system, here’s an Englishman that sees the drawbacks:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCcPhdfoNyw
Get past the idea that Hannity featured him. He’s an Englishman with first hand knowledge, much like yours.
June 28th, 2009 at 2:07 pmAnd right on cue, b-cup shows up with anecdotal evidence that Timmeh abandoned.
Nice one, b-cup.
June 28th, 2009 at 2:11 pmTim Vaculik says: Single Payer. The end of private insurance companies.
Exactly, Tim.
June 28th, 2009 at 2:11 pm.
SHORTER BACKEDUP:
.
June 28th, 2009 at 2:11 pmMy apologies, here’s a better link. (I agree with the first comment that ‘too bad the interview was given by Hannity’. It would have been much better to just let Hannon speak. It’s the other side of the argument of public healthcare.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2JKtb2wdb4
June 28th, 2009 at 2:16 pmSometimes, the best idea is to change the status quo. Other times, it’s not.
June 28th, 2009 at 2:17 pmb-cup, nice try, you give me a politican to make your point. and I gave you my firsthand impression of people I knew who were just regular folks with no special interests to answer to but their own lives.
June 28th, 2009 at 2:17 pmIt’s always interesting to hear what a tiny minority believes.
June 28th, 2009 at 2:18 pmb-cup, by the way, how about answering my other question. Have you ever lived or been for sometime anywhere else besides the US?
June 28th, 2009 at 2:20 pmRepublicans are doing what they always do, putting the priority on protection of corporate interests rather than people. They tout the benefits of competition, but cry foul when someone wants to increase competition. If insurance companies can’t keep up with increased competition, they can go away, no one is going to care.
From a business point of view we live in a global marketplace, having health care as a aspect of employment is a concept that may be coming to an end. We are at a disadvantage compared to other countries that provide health care through other means. If Republicans were the capitalists they claim to be they would embrace a concept to find alternates to health care finance to improve the ability of US business to compete globally. Unfortunately they only appear to believe in maintaining political power. They oppose the health care improvement chiefly because if it is successful it would be a huge political win for Democrats. They will do whatever they can to block it for no other reason but to avoid political oblivion, and in doing so hurt us all.
June 28th, 2009 at 2:21 pmBilbo Hussein Baggins Says:
Here is where Canada cannot compete, the wait to see a specialist may take months but generally your General Practitioner will order initial test such as X-rays, lab work and ultrasound and MRI. This way when you finally see the specialist, the first visit is more than just a formality.
What has hurt the Canadian health system most is the migration of Doctors, Nurses and Technicians to the US, generally because of higher wages. There was a period when the Canadian dollar was worth much less than it’s American counterpart. This exodus has reversed and many expatriates have returned because of the higher cost of living in the US, coupled with the paperwork nightmare, no longer makes working in the US as attractive now that the two currencies are nearer to par.
June 28th, 2009 at 2:21 pmb-cup is in “Fair & Balanced™” mode today.
Gee, it’s too bad no anecdotes exist that show Britons thoroughly pleased with their level of health care. That would certainly swing the debate for b-cup, huh?
June 28th, 2009 at 2:22 pmI lived twelve years in Britain and know very well that for the vast majority of people, their public system is far better than ours! And there is no law that says we must have the British system or Canadian system. We can take the best system in the world and then improve on that.
There are 47 million Americans with no healthcare. In every other developed country in the world (plus some undeveloped) there is not one single citizen with no healthcare. And everyone of these other countries spend one-half or less per capita on their administration compared to the US. This is quite something considering 47 million Americans with nothing are included in that price per capita comparison.
Many examinations have shown that we can SAVE
$350-400 BILLION each and every year administratively alone. The doctor does not become a government worker. This figure does NOT include cost and wage controls. It does not include reasonable prices for pharmacuticals.
In Britain, my root canal surgery cost ZERO. My broken nose cost ZERO. My appendectomy cost ZERO and the government paid me for being off work for two weeks. My eye exam cost ZERO. My dental checkups cost ZERO.
June 28th, 2009 at 2:23 pmIn addition, Tim Vaculik also says: What the advocates of single payer want to do will DESTROY the best health care system in the WORLD.
What have you been smokin’?!! The United States has THE MOST EXPENSIVE healthcare in the world for the LEAST coverage. We have a higher infant mortality than Mexico, for Christ’s sake!
June 28th, 2009 at 2:24 pmI once worked for a truck broker insurance company, and my boss told me: We’re not business to pay claims; we’re in business to sell insurance. Case closed.
No, the reason many Americans question the quality of American healthcare comes from their own experiences. You post links to Englishmen that have had trouble with the UK system while ignoring your own countrymen saying that they were denied coverage because of their illness… after paying for insurance for years. You ignore the millions of uninsured Americans that can’t afford your system. You ignore it all & focus on the individuals from other countries that support your view.
I wouldn’t trade our Canadian system for yours ever. That comes from my own experience and that of every Canadian I’ve known in my lifetime. I’m sure there are exceptions, people that were dissatisfied with our system. That will happen in every country. What cannot be denied is that my future health is not dictated by the profitability of a company, nor by my continued employment. I will not become bankrupt because I get sick.
June 28th, 2009 at 2:25 pmThe amazing thing to me is that wingnuts like b-cup and timmeh are first in line to vote against their own self interests and they want everyone to jump in line behind them because they believe the lies of the corporate whores who are selling us out.
June 28th, 2009 at 2:26 pmI lived in France for four years. Their system is great, and there are not the long waits for service that the repiggies lie about so much.
My health insurance is nearly 14,000 per year. How much more will it climb?
If the public option does not fly, I may go to Europe to live.
I am so fed up with the repiggie liars and crooks who are selling out the future of our nation for immediate profit. I hate the repiggie party, and I won’t vote for any of them, not even for local office. They are all part of the enabling of our national disaster. I don’t trust any of them.
June 28th, 2009 at 2:26 pmThat may be, Keith, but since you were not featured on Hannity, b-cup’s anecdote outweighs your personal experience.
June 28th, 2009 at 2:26 pmTim Valculik..Just look at the myriad of problems the single payer systems in Canada, the U.K., etc., are having.
Single payer, government dictated health care ALWAYS produces shortages and sub-standard care.
If we go with this, where will Canadians go when they need vital procedures they wait 6-9 MONTHS for in their own country? In a number of well-documented cases they have DI
ED waiting for something they could’ve gotten under our system in a matter of DAYS
From a Canadian…..FU** OFF WITH YOUR LIES!!!! Canadians who show up at your door step are rich Fu**s who figure because of there wealth they can get to the front of the line with ELECTIVE SURGERIES!!! DID YOU HEAR THAT ELECTIVE SERGERIES!!!
I have never seen anyone or heard of anyone or had anyone one in my family WAIT FOR TREATMENT IF IT IS REQUIRED NOW!!!!
IF OUR SYSTEM IS SO BAD…WHY DOESN’T THE US MEDIA COME AND ASK US CANADIANS WHAT WE THINK OF SINGLE PAYER????? NOT ONE WILL COME HERE BECUASE THEY KNOW THE TRUTH.
I am greatful to my parents for choosing to immigreat to Canada 45 years ago instead of the corporate fascist state of America.
Americans have a RIGHT to own a gun but it’s a PRIVLAGE to have health care….NOT THATS A COUNTRY I WANT TO LIVE IN.
No disrespect to my American family and friend and it’s citizens who aren’t fascists corporate pigs!!!
June 28th, 2009 at 2:28 pmI now live in Minnesota, and we have alot of Canadians who work here and go to school. The ones I know, when they are sick or need to see a doctor, they go home. None of them would give up their healthcare system for anything like ours.
June 28th, 2009 at 2:28 pmOur healthcare system has failed. We are thirty eighth in the world. Why would wingnuts want what nobody else wants in the whole wide world? They are idiots owned by the flunked out drug addict talking heads they listen to. What country that has single payer is fighting to get a system like we have here in these United States of Corporations? They all think we are fools!
June 28th, 2009 at 2:29 pmMy Company just switched Insurance Carriers. As a result this is what happened to me.
1-My premium jumped 100%.
2-My Co-Pay(s) for Doctor visits, routine care, and such also doubled.
3-My discount for my scrips went up 150%.
4-Two of my scrips were denied. I had to get Special Permission from my Insurance Carrier to receive the discounted
price for those scrips. There is no generic equivelant available.
June 28th, 2009 at 2:29 pmTo Mittens, and the wingtard trolls who oppose a public option or single payer.
STFU!
That’s just the price we pay for COMPETITION!
Eh? Who’s with me?
June 28th, 2009 at 2:33 pmBut, Ralphie, you specifically asked for my anecdote:
Gee, it’s too bad no anecdotes exist that show Britons thoroughly pleased with their level of health care. That would certainly swing the debate for b-cup, huh?
:-)
June 28th, 2009 at 2:34 pmOff-topic. Billy Mays, the spokesman for OxyClean, is dead. He was 50.
June 28th, 2009 at 2:34 pmMaybe Romney should start listening to David Brooks.
Did anyone see what David Brooks said after Romney on Meet The Press this morning about the future ideology of the GOP?
Check this clip out.
http://progressnotcongress.org/?p=1968
June 28th, 2009 at 2:34 pmP.D. Billy Mays seemed like a great guy. That’s sad news.
June 28th, 2009 at 2:41 pmKeith. Did all your healthcare really cost ZERO?
You’re getting something for nothing? Really?
June 28th, 2009 at 2:44 pmkasinca Says:
What country that has single payer is fighting to get a system like we have here in these United States of Corporations? They all think we are fools!
Exactly! If these horror stories about countries with universal coverage were true, there would be a least one over the last forty years that would want to switch to the ‘wonderful’ American system. But there is none. Even when conservatives like Margaret Thatcher and John Major ran Britain, they would not dare try to take away the people’s heathcare. They tried to hurt it as much as possible, but they would not dare take it away.
This puts every conservative European administration to the left of Carter/Clinton/Obama, etc.
June 28th, 2009 at 2:44 pmb-cup, you really aren’t that stupid are you? Peoples taxes pay for their healthcare, instead of wars and bloated military budgets and big oil companies like us.
June 28th, 2009 at 2:47 pmDid all your healthcare really cost ZERO?
Captain Mantastic aka Backup is just a CONTRARIAN who loves to parse words.
June 28th, 2009 at 2:48 pmWith nearly 60 Dems in the Senate – It is not romney, it is the Democrats. Sadly, it appears the way to get to wayward Senate Democrats is through their campaign committees.
The Democratic Senate Campaign Committee has sent 3 fundraising appeals to me this past week. Whether you got one or not – respond. Tell them you will consider a contribution when they begin to act as Democrats with a backbone rather than a water carriers for insurance companies.
The emails came from the politically savy James Carville, Senator Claire McCaskill, and the DSCC Ex. director. Contact them at:
June 28th, 2009 at 2:48 pmjames@carville.info,
info@claireonline.com,
and info@dscc.org
The Republican approch to health care was chosen 15 years ago!
Are we better off now than we were 15 years ago?
This year alone my insurance jumped 30%. The previous years it jumped 100%, including a $2000 deductible. The politicans, both Democrat and Rebublican may want to consider the consequences if a viable and effective health care plan is not formulated. Just maybe the voter may elect some representation who can get the job done.
The health care costs must be be removed from bussiness’.
June 28th, 2009 at 2:48 pmLets face, Wahl Mart does quite well with their government health care system. Just extend the system to the rest of the country.
Okay. Take the profits out of healthcare. When the corporations that develop and provide healthcare can’t pay dividends or enjoy increased share prices (due to the lack of profits), shareholders stop investing.
Without that investment, where does the money come from for the new research and development? Where does the money come from to provide the service?
June 28th, 2009 at 2:49 pmThe best quality is irrelevant if you can be denied that quality. Why is the cost of health care highest? How is the WHO ranking like the BCS poll and who cares?
Again, isn’t the market-driven philosophy, the competition mantra, best quality at the lowest price? The fact that we have the highest cost seems to go against the free-market idea.
Just because you have private insurance doesn’t mean you get the best. You have to get approval for a specialist, usually, right? So you may not get the best, but what your provider deems necessary, depending on your pre-existing condition.
June 28th, 2009 at 2:49 pmDo you know why all these old white politician are still kicking around? The have the best healthcare in the world, and we pay for it. Not only are these guys rich enough to hire their own personal physicians, we pay for every operation and procedure they could ever need. Unlike me, who pays $705 every month, and the insurance co. still finds way to deny me and my family basic care. I even have to pay for a physical! WTF?
June 28th, 2009 at 2:50 pmbackup, of course it comes from taxes and Britains generally pay more than Americans, but at least the taxes go to helping the people instead of only helping the largest corporations.
Tuition at Oxford or Cambridge costs about $1,000 for the British and if your parents cannot afford that, then it is free. Plus you get some money for room, board, and expenses. This is true for every Britain who wants higher education!
In Sweden, nursing homes are covered—while Americans pay $30-40,000 per year.
June 28th, 2009 at 2:51 pmb-cup, by the way, still waitng for your answer to my question from post #90. It would sure give us a better insight on how you have come to the views you have.
June 28th, 2009 at 2:51 pmMike Hunt Says:
——————————————————————————–
Republicans Love Facts Says:
“I won’t raise your taxes!” obama
——-
Who will pay for this ‘health care’ plan? Higher taxes, df!
June 28th, 2009 at 2:53 pmWhy do these so called reporters not ask conservatives the hard questions? Such as.
UPS, FedEx, DHL, and the many shipping/trucking companies compete against a public option of the united states postal service. None of them have been driven out of business.
Social Security is a public retirement plan. Yet, I can goto a private investment bank and still get a private retirement plan.
Other countries that have a public healthcare plan still have private healthcare plans. The public plans in those countries didn’t drive the private industry out of business, it just made them more affordable…
How is any of this possible under conservative logic? And why are the corporate news agencies not asking these questions? Could it be they have investments in the health insurance industry? Or they all that horrible of reporters they didn’t think of asking?
June 28th, 2009 at 2:55 pmI want the public option to pass. I’m sick of my health care costs rising and I want to pay less. The government option will lower my costs and I hope all the insurance companies go broke.
June 28th, 2009 at 2:57 pmMaybe if repugs don’t want to pay higher taxes, maybe they can drop their support for a jet fighter we don’t need, or all those bloated military bases protecting us from the commie surge, or maybe all those tax breaks to big oil. That sure would be a start.
June 28th, 2009 at 2:57 pmbackup Says:
Okay. Take the profits out of healthcare. When the corporations that develop and provide healthcare can’t pay dividends or enjoy increased share prices (due to the lack of profits), shareholders stop investing.
You are wrong!
June 28th, 2009 at 2:59 pmYou do not understand!
I am talking about administration only!
Administration only!
Administration only!
Administration!
Administration!
Seraphim Sock Says
How long did it take you to come up with that name?
June 28th, 2009 at 2:59 pmWhy is it that all Mormon politicians, like Romney, are nuttier than a fruit cake and Republican?
Is it because the magic underpants they wear cuts off the blood circulation to their brain?
Or is it because they believe that God lives on a planet named Kolob?
Or is it because Mormons believe that the only way an African American can get to heaven is if he becomes a slave to a white man?
June 28th, 2009 at 2:59 pmoh noes!
June 28th, 2009 at 3:03 pmRepublicans Love Facts Says:
Who will pay for this ‘health care’ plan? Higher taxes, df!
Single-payer SAVES $350-400 BILLION each and every year ADMINISTRATIVELY ALONE!
Dang, you conservatives are thick-headed!
June 28th, 2009 at 3:03 pmfirst of all, mittens is totally misrepresenting the case here in MA, on at least two points. first, he has loved to claim the state’s healthcare reform program as his own brainchild when it suited him (he is such a slimey, two-faced bastard), but slams it when it doesn’t, passing it off to the legislature where it really belongs (he merely signed the bill under some duress).
second, the MA plan in fact does boast a state option which has been a godsend for tens of thousands of uninsured in the state. payments are prorated according to income, and if you qualify below a certain cutoff, you pay zero premium. this state option, i can tell you, is excellent, only limited by the lower numbers of caregivers who have signed on to that list, though that’s changing (and not that different from any carrier’s list that restricts your choice of caregiver). obama’s public option would allow us to choose any caregiver we want, and they would get paid (as long as that part remains in the bill).
the downside to the MA plan of course is that the whole thing is compulsory; those stuck on the income borderline are penalized with high premiums for making too much money as per the cutoff, but not enough money to actually pay the premiums. consequently, many are still opting out of insurance altogether and facing the small penalty (it’s added to your tax), which is way less than a year of bc/bs premiums any day. in any case, the system is rapidly running out of money not because of the state run option, but because the participating insurance companies (mostly bc/bs, which essentially has a monopoly in most states) continue to rake in profits. all those profits could be going to actual healthcare coverage for those stuck in the middle. but let’s not let a little logic to obscure the dollar signs in these guys’ eyes.
and i’d like a word with backup. with all due respect, that brit MP was a joke. he has every right to rag on brown for britain’s money problems, but he is woefully out of touch on the NHS. first of all, what a chump for claiming that their bureaucracy makes your medical decisions for you! this is precisely what our insurance companies do here in every single claim and case!! i know full well as i am a provider and fight with them every single day! i for one, as both a caregiver and a customer, would much prefer a single panel of medical experts make these decisions for the overall good of the whole system than for each insurance company to have a panel of creepy MDs on the money take to be figuring out how to profit the individual company. this latter situation, which is what has been taking it all to hell in a handbasket (hillary was spot on way back then), makes me gag.
second, what i have repeatedly noticed from individuals who would trash the national healthcare system anywhere is this: they are well off enough to feel they are entitled to the demands of the best system. like any good narcissist and sociopath, they want what they want when they want it. their perspective on the system has nothing to do with how it serves the common good, but instead how it will only serve their own selfish needs, the rest of us be damned. you will be hard pressed to find a middle class or poorer individual who has any complaints about national health care.
i happened to do a very puny calculation that, for all its puniness, exposes a ton on how much waste there is in the private sector healthcare industry. the MA ceo for bc/bs made last year, salary and bonuses, $4.3 mill. nice, eh? well, let’s just, for the sake of easy calculations, assume that the bc/bs ceo’s in all the 50 states average less than half that, $2 mill. you see where i’m going with this? this means that $100 mill of our premium payments each and every year go toward those obscene salaries for individuals whose singular purpose in life is to deny as much coverage as possible.
now that puny calculation does nothing to address the many other insurance companies out there besides bc/bs (the largest), nor the second tier management, not to mention the shareholders who suck up the profits after these bozos get paid. pretty disgusting, in my book.
i’m not saying the gubmint is incapable of waste or graft, but let’s get real, here. the fact is that medicare and social security have operated for well over a half century, and i don’t see any of the folks running those agencies getting obscenely rich off those systems.
and i know full well and first hand how doctors and hospitals get caught up in the money machinery (gawandi’s latest revelations about mcallen tx expose just how far doctors and hospitals have worked the system for their own gain (e.g., investing in companies that do tests that they then over-refer their patients to; nice).
jon stewart and michael moore got it so right. the former responded to repug whining that the government can’t do anything right by reminding the jokers that our military defense is run by the government, as are our fire departments, etc. and he marveled over the fact that a stamped letter can still be picked up at your door and be delivered to another door in WY in only a couple of days, for pennies!! really now. and don’t prolong that whine by complaining that the USPS is losing money; i will remind you that the postal service is no longer a pure government agency; it’s been quasi-independent since 1971. we have nixon to thank for that move, which deserves close scrutiny.
and then moore’s observation that there is just something really terribly terribly wrong about anyone profiting from someone’s ill health simply; this point needs to be the mantra for the single payer program. that an insurance company at any level of its operation would profit from denying someone coverage (as a former manager testified in congress last week; pretty disgusting) should be a serious federal crime. that simple.
June 28th, 2009 at 3:03 pmWho will pay for this ‘health care’ plan? Higher taxes, df!
Base tax rate in US is 30% , basic tax rate in Canada 32% .
For the extra 2% in taxes….we get single payer health care,
higher Education system is subsidized 75%. Therefore my kids tutition which costs $5000 per year would cost $20,000 per year.
How much is your health insurance payment???? and your co-pays and deductables ????
How much do you pay for Collage per year?????
GUESS WHO IS GETTING RIPPED OFF BLIND!!! GUESS WHO (PER CAPITA)ARE WEALTHIER ????? GUESS WHO IS HEALTHIER PER CAPITA?????
How many would pay an extra 2% in taxes??????
June 28th, 2009 at 3:04 pmUnder the direction of Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from Nevada, three of four members of the caucus met earlier this week to discuss issues relevant to the LDS community and to discuss how to raise the profile of Mormon Democrats.
Joining in the meeting were Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, and Rep. Tom Udall, D-N.M. Rep. Eni Faleomavaega, a nonvoting member of Congress from American Samoa, was not able to attend but plans to participate in the future.
June 28th, 2009 at 3:04 pmangel. Come on. I gave you Hannon:
He’s an Englishman. His view is different than yours:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2JKtb2wdb4
And I’ve lived outside the U.S. as a dependent on a U.S. military base (in Germany).
Additionally, I spent 10 years in the military. I love the military, but the care I got in the U.S. military (government run) was substandard to the private care I experience now.
I work as an international airline pilot and have been to every continent on the planet (except Antarctica). I’ve probably visited 40 or 50 countries in my travels.
2 months ago I took a trip to Kuwait City. I love the Kuwaiti people. (There government is very generous to their citizens – with the oil money) It was the beginning of the Swine Flu outbreak. Our crew had to visit a clinic to ensure we weren’t carriers.
Trust me. You’d take your chances in America.
June 28th, 2009 at 3:05 pm” We believe in allowing people to have choice in their health care,” he said.”
Translated:
June 28th, 2009 at 3:05 pmthe repukelican party believes in choice when it comes to healthcare- you can either choose to pay our BFF’s in the insurance industry or you can choose to go without healthcare
Did Mitt have his magic underwear on backwards this morning?? Whhhaaaaaaa…riding up Mitt?
What a hack….Maybe he’ll be the new pitchman for the pocket fisherman now that Billy Mayes bit the dust…
If Mittens didn’t have some slides and foils and talking points for some corporate sponsor ready daily he’d probably just deflate and just blow away!!
June 28th, 2009 at 3:06 pmFor the extra 2% in taxes
June 28th, 2009 at 3:07 pmPlease show me this text in obamas plan.
How odd –Romney doesn’t mention that the health care program in MA is falling apart as we speak.
This man will never be president.
June 28th, 2009 at 3:09 pm*
Republicans Love Facts,
June 28th, 2009 at 3:10 pmHealth Care is expensive and many people can not afford it. People are losing their saving over medical preocedures. Our system is expensive and really sucks. It is time for a Cheap subsidized public option that hopefully bankrupts the The insurance companies. Then we will have cheap coverage and live healthy.
b-cup, if the system you are arguing against was strictly theoretical, or had failed where it did exist, your theoretical comapliants about the death of research might have a little more sway.
Yet the most recent Nobel Prize for medicine was awarded to two researchers from France and one from Germany.
The 2007 Prize was shared by a doctor from the United Kingdom along with two from the US.
Doesn’t look to me like research has ground to a halt under that system.
Besides, as Bill Maher points out, we still have no cure for cancer but we have hair-growing pill and a boner pill. That’s the kind of research that corporate medicine leads to.
June 28th, 2009 at 3:11 pmFor the extra 2% in taxes
Please show me this text in obamas plan.
This is no Obama plan….this is a fact…US base tax rate is 30% …in Canada its 32% .
Is that to difficult to understand??? For 2% we get a hell of a lot more then you do….in fact your getting ripped off blind!!!
June 28th, 2009 at 3:11 pmThen we will have cheap coverage and live healthy
Like cuba?
June 28th, 2009 at 3:12 pmSomeone has a reading disability.
June 28th, 2009 at 3:14 pmRepublicans Love Facts Says:
When you get back to Blogmocracy, tell Twajie that once again, he has mail! And tell him to stop making those threats of violence against Think Progress bloggers, I have kept all the threatening email and if you do not cease, they will be turned over to the Florida FBI.
June 28th, 2009 at 3:14 pmhow is it repukes are always crowing about “free markets” and “competition” until the “competition” is the government? are you afraid the corporate sector won’t be able to compete with a public option? according to your doctrines, that’s too bad for them.
June 28th, 2009 at 3:14 pmI don’t give a shit about Obamas plan…what does that have to do with be base tax rates that people pay??????
What is your base tax rate when filing your taxes???? Ours is 32% WHATS YOURS????
June 28th, 2009 at 3:17 pmRepublicans Love Facts,
June 28th, 2009 at 3:17 pmYes Cuba is a great model. The Cuban system is superior to America’s in many way. Castro was an innovator, unlike Bush who was a criminal.
ralph. only about 30% of people get cancer. Everybody wants more hair and more boners.
(kidding)
you make a good point. Socialized medicine is not the end of R+D. I struggle with the idea of what causes incentive.
As a generalization, I believe that progressives have more of a belief that people will altruistically work without the profit potential. I have (what I believe is) an ingrained belief that people are motivated, in general, by profit.
I believe that the more we take that profit from the equation, the more likely we diminish the incentive.
June 28th, 2009 at 3:19 pmBozo. Obviously, the government can subsidize the public option. And the government isn’t required to make a profit.
How is a corporation supposed to compete with an entity that can just print money?
June 28th, 2009 at 3:22 pmIt’s sad that you don’t recognize any other human drive except for accumulation of wealth.
June 28th, 2009 at 3:22 pmbackup,
June 28th, 2009 at 3:23 pmThat is because Progressive care about people and put the greater interest over their own. You Neocons are greedy Fascists that want people to work for low wages, have health care that makes them broke and pay higher taxes than you.
The sheer hypocrisy of it all..Pro business Party of NO, the party that says competition is a good thing, for some reason does not want competition for their buddies in the health care insurance and big pharma.
Some reason?
We are, for the most part, fully aware how the party of NO and too many democrats are bought off and do not have the votes because the contributors rule, not US.
June 28th, 2009 at 3:23 pmbackup,
June 28th, 2009 at 3:24 pmThe Government cares for the people, while Corporations ship jobs overseas.
ralph. it’s sad or it’s realistic.
Explain this to me. The main tenet of the former Soviet Union was the altruism that you suggest. Did that pan out?
June 28th, 2009 at 3:24 pmWTF does printing money have to do with this argument? I recall someone else making that point the other day, too.
You really think that governmental monetary policy would be subservient to a national health service? Does that sound like a reasonable fear to you?
June 28th, 2009 at 3:26 pmbackup says:
I believe that the more we take that profit from the equation, the more likely we diminish the incentive.
Profit for whom???? Do you know what the word “administration” means???? Give me a big sheet of paper and a crayon and I shall draw you a picture!
June 28th, 2009 at 3:26 pmbackup,
June 28th, 2009 at 3:27 pmThe Soviet Union was a paradise but the US and the West killed it economically. Stalin was a great humanists and caring man.
Republicans Love Facts Says:
——————————————————————————–
For the extra 2% in taxes
Please show me this text in obamas plan.
==========================================================
There is no Obama plan yet. They are still working on it and that is why you wingnuts are coming unhinged. You see that your way has failed like all your free market ventures. Single payer would end this argument so we can focus on fixing the rest of the failed ronnie raygun lower taxes, deregulation, rip offs of the past thirty years.
June 28th, 2009 at 3:27 pmkasinca,
June 28th, 2009 at 3:28 pmI agree 100%, we need higher taxes on the Rich. I say let us raise their rates up to 60%!
It’s sad, b-cup. There are all sorts of people who do what they do because they love it, not because it will make them rich. teachers, for instance. They’re not gonna get rich in that profession. They should be comfortable and free from financial stress, but they won’t be buying villas in Tuscany on their salaries.
I think our medical delivery system has actually suffered in some ways for the high incomes that doctors typically earn. It attracts those who want to heal and serve others, but it also attracts those who want to be earn big bucks. We’re left with many doctors who have little in the way of bedside manner or true concern for the well-being of the patient.
Your specious attempt at yet another false equivalency is laughable.
Are you saying the Soviet Union was brought down by its health care policy? That’s the only way your rhetorical question would make any sense.
June 28th, 2009 at 3:31 pmYou trolls must all be children that have never been sick or had to pay a copay. Blue Cross is currently trying not to pay for the torn tendon in my daughter’s wrist because they claim she must have hurt it on the job. She’s 14 years old. After we sent in numerous forms testifying that she didn’t hurt it on the job they sent affadavits where we’d have to swear that none of us was on Medicare. Why would I be paying them $12.5K a year if I had Medicare? Morons.
June 28th, 2009 at 3:31 pmHi Trajan.
June 28th, 2009 at 3:31 pmas if my diatribe were not long enough, there is one more point to make to those idiots out there who cringe at ‘higher taxes’!!
what chumps. again, do the math. it’s really very simple. because we cut out all those $2mill ceo’s and the profit-sucking shareholders, the national healthcare plan will – as many here realize – actually save money!!
yes yes, this is so true. profits go into pockets that have nothing to do with healthcare, so in a government run system (remember, too; we the people, the government is us!) the money that would be profits is then freed up to actually do the work of… healthcare. sheez, what a concept.
ultimately this might mean higher taxes, but it will definitely mean NO insurance premiums!!! in any case, even if there are higher taxes, they will most definitely NOT increase to levels higher than a fraction of insurance premiums as they are now costing us. (last i checked, the average family’s monthly insurance payment is around a grand, but generally much more; taxes will most definitely NOT increase to that degree, except for the very wealthy, whose cries that their taxes have gone up a grand a year never cease to appall me.)
now, call me stupid, but i’d much prefer everything that goes along with a public system (even maybe having to wait longer for an MRI), including the economics (NO PROFITS) and the comfort of knowing that every single one of my fellow citizens has their healthcare covered. and that includes me, too.
now that is NOT a socialist system; that is what the constitution requires of us all as citizens, that we are responsible for “promoting the general welfare” and “insuring domestic tranquility” and “forming a more perfect union.” that union is only as good as the sum of its parts, folks, and if we deny huge chunks of our citizenry the right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” (of which decent health is “just about everything”) because those citizens don’t have enough money, we have then lapsed back into the category of a plutocracy, against which i do believe our founding fathers bridled against every bit as much as the crown.
or perhaps our conservative friends would prefer to think of it as an investment in the strength of our country. the healthier our populace, the stronger we are; how could any patriotic american argue with that? especially with the counter-argument of the status quo that strengthens only the wealthy profit machinery that feeds off the least among us.
for chrissake, how do those people sleep at night?
June 28th, 2009 at 3:32 pmRomney is playing God in the Garden of Eden.
You can all these but don’t even think about this one.
Choice means all viable options. Your constituents don’t have to choose the government option. For you to choose for us is no choice at all.
June 28th, 2009 at 3:32 pmGotta go. Second half is about to start.
(BTW, US leads Brazil 2-0)
June 28th, 2009 at 3:34 pmThe hospitals in cuba the doughnut disposal doesn’t want you to see.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25_RgM1jHeo&feature=related
June 28th, 2009 at 3:34 pmQuestion:
Do those accepting contributions and voting only in their contributors interest really think they, with their huge amounts of $, can dazzle the public enough the public forgets how the votes went?
I say NO as we now have the internet instead of only corporate owned (insurance+media+defense) media.
June 28th, 2009 at 3:34 pmWhen I worked for an investment banking firm in corporate finance the ONLY INVESTORS we had were insurance companies and the Mormon and Catholic churges. We need to start taxing churches since all they do is brainwash the masses. The tell their people to fight at all cost against higher taxes because that would cut into their profits.
June 28th, 2009 at 3:35 pmWhat a hack….Maybe he’ll be the new pitchman for the pocket fisherman now that Billy Mayes bit the dust…
For real?
June 28th, 2009 at 3:35 pmWinski says, “Did Mitt have his magic underwear on backwards this morning?? Whhhaaaaaaa…riding up Mitt?”
Haha!
June 28th, 2009 at 3:36 pmSeraphim Shock, your not fooling anybody trollie.
June 28th, 2009 at 3:37 pmI suggest that Conservatives care about people too. They see the idea of care in a different way (that I know you will find laughable).
There is no doubt in my mind that Progressives care about people.
But, I also believe that Conservatives care about people.
You’ll be appalled, but here goes.
If you believe in evolution, you’ll agree that Human beings are also animals. It’s reality.
I believe that the progressive idea of empathy would be to take an animal and put it in the care of a zookeeper. Feed it, care for it, shelter it, and protect it from harm. That obviously seems more compassionate then letting it fend for itself in the wild.
But, is it really in that individuals best interest? Is that really what’s good for, let’s say, an individual lion or shark (not to mention the individual species as whole)? To ensure it’s safety and provide for it’s needs? Trading the individuals autonomy for the safety of dependance?
Rightly or wrongly, I believe that conservatives believe you don’t serve the best interest of the individual or the whole, by creating that dependance.
Of course, there are matters of degrees between the two and I believe the task is to find balance. It would not be compassionate to leave a dying man in the street to fend for himself. Conversely, it may not really be compassionate to create dependancy by meeting every need.
June 28th, 2009 at 3:39 pmMost research scientist don’t make much money but they do it anyway. Perhaps we’d be better off if the doctors treating us were more interested in our well being than a big fat paycheck. And if it wasn’t such a gravy train maybe the nepotism involved would fade and the best students would actually get accepted to medical school instead of children of doctors looking for a fast buck.
June 28th, 2009 at 3:40 pmAnd as usual you are WRONG.
June 28th, 2009 at 3:41 pmGermany has had universal healthcare since 1883.
Teddy Roosevelt wanted it.
Truman wanted it.
Eisenhower wanted it.
Nixon considered it.
Carter wanted it.
Every other developed country in the world has it.
Does this sound like communism???
Dr. lllphd REALLY knows of what he speaks. He is an American doctor, not a pilot who visited a Kuwaiti clinic.
June 28th, 2009 at 3:42 pmNo. I’m not saying that. I’m saying that the system didn’t work because there was no incentive to produce in any facet of the economy.
How do you explain it?
June 28th, 2009 at 3:42 pmThat’s not what I heard:
wikipedia
June 28th, 2009 at 3:47 pmDoodlebug Shayne #42,
I don’t need a link. The story is from my manager’s personal experience. They had two married friends come from the U.K. to live here.
Second, my manager has worked with health care benefits in Canada before. She has an interesting and informed opinion on how their system works.
Of course, I don’t use my manager for all my information, but it’s good, first-hand information.
June 28th, 2009 at 3:48 pmwhy would the best students pursue medicine if it didn’t pay better than anything else?
June 28th, 2009 at 3:48 pmnoliesplease, please go here if you wish to bellyache about tax rates:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States
scroll down to the final table that shows the history of tax rates in this country, and you will find the highest tax bracket paid around 90% during wartime.
and you whine about 32%??? and just how much of your income do you think it actually takes to pay for running the government, building and maintaining bridges and roads, keeping a defense, educating our children, monitoring our ports, keeping up our national parks, etc. etc. etc….. need i go on??
and why should the wealthy NOT pay that high a percentage of their income? even after that, they are left with huge chunks of money!! 90% of $100 mill still leaves $10 mill; do you really expect anyone to cry a river over how “unfair” that is?? get real. and don’t try to convince me they “earned” it; the way finances are set up these days, the notion that the rich just get richer has catapulted some several orders of magnitude into the stratosphere. hence the very real reality that the gap between the very rich and very poor is larger than it’s been since the great depression, and just getting larger. now, how does that serve the american way?
just a reminder: you pay taxes in order to enjoy the PRIVILEGE of living in this country. or do you feel – along with so many other conservative taxinoiacs – that you are simply entitled to all these things and they should be there for you without any effort or investment on your part?? and certainly not from any gradient taxing on the wealthy, oh god forbid!
there is a question on an intelligence test about why we pay taxes. i’m always fascinated with how many otherwise apparently intelligent people don’t get this simple but profoundly logical point. grover norquist and his ilk are right down there in the gutter on these lies, luring all the selfishness in each and every one of us to join them.
surely you have more sense?
June 28th, 2009 at 3:49 pmRepublicans Love Facts Says:
You compared the US to Cuba and the US came out ahead! Terrific! Now compare the US to Switzerland and see who comes out ahead. Or compare Holland to Haiti and see who comes out ahead.
June 28th, 2009 at 3:49 pmHa ha, so let the strong (wealthy) survive & the weak (poor) perish. Those that can afford healthcare deserve it, the rest would become dependent on a public system. What a moronic thing to say. God help you if you ever have a child with a disease that bankrupts you. Your words will eat at you like an acid. Come back & post so we can all revel in it.
June 28th, 2009 at 3:50 pmbackup, Seraphim Shock is one of yours giving his impression of a progressive.
June 28th, 2009 at 3:51 pmlllphd #161,
Sorry, chump. Not only will it mean much higher taxes, but you will pay a premium as well.
Check out our neighbors to the North. You can’t get something for “free” or didn’t your mama teach you anything…
What have you beren smokin’ ???
June 28th, 2009 at 3:53 pmRepublicans Love Facts Says:
The hospitals in cuba the doughnut disposal doesn’t want you to see.
That clip was made by an anonymous person and brought to you by, of all people liar Hanity. I wonder how much $ was donated by insurance and big pharma to make that scare tactic…. you can hear the greed in Hanitiy’s voice.
I am shocked at the stupidity of that clip and at one that takes time to post it.
June 28th, 2009 at 3:54 pmKeith. you’re right. thanks.
June 28th, 2009 at 3:54 pmbackup Says:
why would the best students pursue medicine if it didn’t pay better than anything else?
FOR FU(KS SAKE I AM TALKING ABOUT ADMINISTRATION, NOT DOCTORS’ SALARY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
June 28th, 2009 at 3:55 pmSeraphim Shock, your not fooling anybody trollie.
He is fooling himself if he believes that he is accomplishing anything other than making a$$ of himself.
June 28th, 2009 at 3:55 pmDave. That sounds compassionate. (snark off)
June 28th, 2009 at 3:56 pmI pay no premium. In Canada. I don’t smoke either. What premiums are you referring to? I assume you’re not Canadian so please post the evidence that you’re using to form your opinions.
June 28th, 2009 at 3:57 pmCompassion is reserved for those that deserve it. Not those that feel that only those that can afford healthcare deserve healthcare.
June 28th, 2009 at 3:57 pmOver 60% of American corporations pay absolutely no taxes whatsoever. Ross Perot paid a little over 7% federal tax on over $200 million yearly income. Under Eisenhower, the marginal rate over $100,000 per year for individuals was 90%.
June 28th, 2009 at 4:02 pmWarren Buffet pays a lower tax rate on his earnings then his secretaries. Go figure.
June 28th, 2009 at 4:04 pmDave. you present one extreme, so I’ll present the other.
We meet every need of every individual.
Here’s free housing. Here’s free healthcare If you don’t want to work, don’t worry about; we’ll meet your needs with public welfare. Anything else to keep you safe and warm and happy; we will supply.
You end up with a circumstance much like the animals, caged in the zoo.
The only problem, is that in the human zoo, the money runs out (because, no one produces to support the others). And that compassionate endeavor results in the slow death of the whole, because the individuals can no longer contribute or fend for themselves.
Again, the answer is not either extreme, but a balance of the ideas.
June 28th, 2009 at 4:05 pmI’m out. Good crowd. See you, later.
June 28th, 2009 at 4:06 pmHow stupid are you. I said we’d be better off to have people interested in healing the sick than making the most money. Ask me the same question again, idiot.
June 28th, 2009 at 4:06 pmDave C Says:
[...]please post the evidence that you’re using to form your opinions.
Dave, you are discussing with a conservative. When doing so, you must keep in mind facts and evidence are optional.
The only fact conservatives need is “Limbaugh said so”.
June 28th, 2009 at 4:06 pmI did nothing of the sort. I presented the extreme that you espouse. Name a civilized country that you look up to that does not provide a basic level of healthcare to the population. Other then the U.S. of course. Then show me how the endgame that you describe has come about.
June 28th, 2009 at 4:10 pmBackup at 192. Your assumption would only be correct if everybody was as pathetically lazy and egocentric as you reich wing selfish bastards. Many people work very hard for not much money. And many people volunteer for no money. The idea that everybody would sit on their asses if they could is absurd and shows the kind of person you are not the kind of people that make up a functioning society. You people are so stingy that the thought of anybody getting anything without your approval drives you crazy. OK lets do it your way, but enough all that money changing hands among church goers with no accountability. I have the right to freedom from religion and I’m tired of churches freeloading on the backs of the rest of us and telling their so called Christian members that they should only share with the people the church decides they should share with. Well until churches build roads and bridges and pay fire and police departments then they should pay like everybody else. Or else they should start teaching the values Christ himself would have taught.
June 28th, 2009 at 4:11 pmtry this example, but with airline pilots.
Let’s say there are a lot of people that would like to fly people around. Some just really like airplanes, some want to do it for the money.
Now, drastically cut the salaries of airline pilots. The assumption would be that those considering the profession for financial gains will pursue something else.
Here’s the problem: There may be a considerable amount of candidates that have better aptitude for the job that are dissuaded by the lower income.
What you may have left, are people that are interested in the career, that aren’t necessarily the best pilots.
If you don’t have the best pilots, wouldn’t the aviation system suffer overall?
June 28th, 2009 at 4:12 pmRepublicans Love Facts-
How can you and the other trolls waste your time watching Fox news and especially post garbage here from that proven liar network? Why did they give them self the name FOX?
surely by now you have figured out when a gopper goes astray, they are labeled as a Democrat.
SHOCKING: Fox News Labels Disgraced Republican Mark Sanford — A Democrat
a one time MISTAKE?
no….
John McCain – Democrat
June 28th, 2009 at 4:14 pmJoe Lieberman – Democrat
Arlen Spector – Democrat (when he was still a Republican!)
Mark Foley – Democrat
Oh and backup, the Soviet Union fell because long after they wanted to end the cold war Reagan and Bush insisted they stay in it so their friends in the industrial military complex could get richer. They spent themselves into bankruptcy because of the Bush Reich before we did because the same criminals never have enough money.
June 28th, 2009 at 4:14 pmThey have ideas. Make it impossible for any one but the wealthy to sue for malpractice, tax cuts, union busting, more subsidies for private health insurers.
June 28th, 2009 at 4:16 pmI read the non-sensical bloviations of b-cup and I witness a very short sighted, selfish, individual. He is a pilot but believes in the almighty corporations to do what is right about healthcare. A very dimwitted individual to say the least. There is no reason a pilot should be a greedy, redneck, troglodyte.
June 28th, 2009 at 4:17 pmbackup says: Now, drastically cut the salaries of airline pilots. The assumption would be that those considering the profession for financial gains will pursue something else.
WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT DOCTORS’ SALARIES!!!!!!!!!
June 28th, 2009 at 4:20 pmWE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE ADMINISTRATION!!!!!!!!!!!!!
SINGLE-PAYER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
INSTEAD OF 1,300 DIFFERENT PAYERS, EACH WITH NINE DIFFERENT PLANS, MAKING 11,7000 PLANS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
AAAAAAAIIIIIIIIIIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
backup, your straman arguments are ridiculous. Millions of kids play baseball every day even though they’re never going to make money at it. Every day millions of kids sing in choirs or act in plays even though they’re never going to make money at it. And the fact is some of the most talented people in the world never make it to the top because of nepotism and connections or bad luck. Your idea that the only way to get the best work is to pay them the most money is because that’s the kind of person you are. We wouldn’t want somebody with such linear thinking taking care of patient so I guess you wouldn’t understand even if you tried.
I put in hundreds of hours volunteering in hospitals in high school because I wanted to help sick people. Those are the kind of people we want in medical school, the people who would do it with or without big money.
June 28th, 2009 at 4:21 pmone too many zeros. 11,700 plans!!!!!!!!!!!!
June 28th, 2009 at 4:23 pmAAAAAAAIIIIIIIEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
backup cites pilots but yet his hero Ronnie Reagan fired air traffic controllers who were the best because the CEOs of the airlines wanted bigger bonuses. And the air traffic controllers wanted more support to make the skies safer. Discussing anything with these morons is a huge waste of time.
June 28th, 2009 at 4:23 pmSingle payer can be paid for by reversing the W tax cuts for the wealthy $1.3 trillion and recouping some of the costs of the unnecessary war in Iraq estimated at $3 trillion. Wingnuts think it is okay to steal and kill for the corporations but they cannot see any benefit is providing the most basic of human needs, healthcare to their own. Go figure what kind of cretins are in this group of greedy, self-centered, murderous, thugs.
June 28th, 2009 at 4:24 pmKeith, I’m arguing with bcup and his opinion that doctors in other countries who make less money offer worse care. I don’t believe that’s true. I think too many doctors in this country don’t care enough about the patients they’re dealing with that we’ve put too many business decisions in the doctors offices.
June 28th, 2009 at 4:24 pmHow does corporate profit being eliminated equate with doctor’s salaries dropping?
June 28th, 2009 at 4:27 pmSen. Max Baucus a D- from Montana, a true weasel, the senate point man on health care reform, has taken more money from the insurance and health care corporations than any other. Single payer option has been taken off the table thanks to Max Baucus. Max Baucus, I think he has an intestinal blockage of some kind, yes he’s full up. Max Baucus another Dem that needs to GO. Max Baucus rotten to the bone, a true greedy simp of monumental purportion thurting the public good. Max Baucus’s optical nerve got crossed with his rectical nerve and now he has a shitty outlook on life, and health care. Why, Max Baucus, why?
June 28th, 2009 at 4:28 pmUmm… because they are driven to heal the sick and serve others?
June 28th, 2009 at 4:28 pmIMO, the core basis of the health care debate is community vs. individual. It seems that people opposed to health care reform with a public option are saying, “I have no interest in what happens to you no matter how much it damages you health-wise or economically. Lose your home? That’s you in the street. I’ll have no problem seeing you and your kids standing by as I go to work every day.” “Lost your health insurance, or don’t have health insurance? Too bad. My family’s covered.” Whereas, one with a sense of community says, “We’re all in this together, and I’ll do whatever I can to help you. You’re as valuable as I am. What happens to you matters to me.”
The group in the former scenario just do not give a D@mn. UNTIL IT HAPPENS TO THEM.
They preach on and on daily about liberty, freedom, justice, the market system, etc., but it’s all hot air. Many of them have very little, or no, knowledge of how a market economy operates. If you ask them why FDR fought so hard to regulate businesses and establish a Social Security System. Ask them about the flaws/shortcomings of a market economy. Ask them why the Federal Reserve System was established. Ask them why some lower income people receive help in the form of public assistance ( their usual answer to this is because they are lazy.) Ask them why we have an unemployment fund. They have no idea. The fact is that these programs were created to mitigate some of the effects of the inherent flaws in a free market system. Those who oppose health care reform, reform of the financial sector, and other reforms, in reality care not one bit about these issues, except when it comes to themselves. Individualism. Fu(k everyone else. I’m the only one who matters. They fail to realize the inter-connectedness of a civil society, and that the preamble to the Constitution states as one of the responsibilities of the government among many others is to “promote the common good.” 72% of Americans say health care reform with a public option promotes the common good. Sounds like a majority to me.
I tend not to get into debates with conservative/republican/fundamentalist members of this society due to the fact that, in many cases, they simply don’t know enough and do not display signs of independent, logical thinking, and it’s frustrating as he!! for me to converse with them, and besides, it gets on my last nerve. I don’t say I know everything there is to know on a certain subject, but I do not mind doing the research to gain knowledge about it.
June 28th, 2009 at 4:32 pmb-cup gave his “Fair & Balanced™” routine a good shot today, but ultimately, under a little pressure, the façade crumbled and his devoted materialism overthrew his pretense of “realism”.
June 28th, 2009 at 4:37 pmhttp://www.pnhp.org/facts/single_payer_resources.php
“The potential savings on paperwork, more than $350 billion per year, are enough to provide comprehensive coverage to everyone without paying any more than we already do.”
paperwork not salaries paperwork not salaries paperwork not salaries paperwork not salaries paperwork not salaries paperwork not salaries paperwork not salaries paperwork not salaries paperwork not salaries paperwork not salaries paperwork not salaries paperwork not salaries paperwork not salaries paperwork not salaries paperwork not salaries paperwork not salaries paperwork not salaries paperwork not salaries paperwork not salaries paperwork not salaries paperwork not salaries paperwork not salaries paperwork not salaries
June 28th, 2009 at 4:40 pmb-cup talks about being a pilot and having a great salary and healthcare. I wonder how he would have felt if he had been one of the many Northwest Airline pilots who got layed off or took huge cuts in pay and healthcare.
June 28th, 2009 at 4:44 pmbackup says: Now, drastically cut the salaries of airline pilots. The assumption would be that those considering the profession for financial gains will pursue something else.
==============================================================
I don’t want any professional working for me who is only looking at the amount of money they can make. What kind of professional doesn’t have a love to accomplish that which they are trained for with a knowledge that the material will follow. To put the money before the job is part of the reason the ronnie raygun philosophy has failed at every point. Greed has ruined our economy.
June 28th, 2009 at 4:44 pmDave C, yes, yes, that’s it. Doing away with Blue Cross/Blue Shield does not reduce the doctors’ salaries nor research and development,yes, yes, you understand, you understand, you understand, you understand, yes, yes.
June 28th, 2009 at 4:46 pmJust a minor meltdown. The nice young men in the white suits are here now. :-)
June 28th, 2009 at 4:53 pm200 posts.
June 28th, 2009 at 5:01 pmMost of which are b-cup trying to show how intelligent he is.
Facts be damn.
As usual, it’s a game for him. I worked with someone like this, who argued just to hear the sound of his own voice.
Anyone who claims we have the best health care systme in the world doesn’t deserve a response.
What a waste of time to talk to people like this.
tony and lido
Tim Vaculik, i am actually in the north, in MA, as my long post says (apologies), and i can tell you that the poor do NOT pay premiums.
and as dave notes, in canada they do not pay premiums at all.
i don’t smoke anything; what are YOU smoking????
June 28th, 2009 at 5:08 pmBackup,
Being a good pilot vs being a pilot that drinks the company Kool-aid are two separate work ethics.
June 28th, 2009 at 5:18 pmThere are a lot of pilots that stink as actual pilots but they do well in the industry because they follow the company protocol and feed their co-workers to the lions.
In my nine years of in-home care-giving, with four different clients, I have spent a lot of time with doctors and an excellent transplant team. You can tell which doctors love it, and which don’t. The happiest doctor I met was a GP. He was the doctor for a transplant candidate I was working for, and what an excellent doctor he was. He listened to his client. He listened to me. He took what we said into consideration when making decisions– we discussed things.It was beautiful. I asked him once, why he didn’t go for the money. He said he loved what he was doing and he didn’t need more money. I knew exactly what he meant. I was working 24/7 for $2.64 an hour with no health insurance, no benefits (no rent or bills though)—that was before the union organized in-home caregivers in Oregon.
The most ecstatic doctor I met was a transplant surgeon who worked in a research hospital. The surgery was performed in a V.A. operating room (the V.A. hospital and research hospital are joined). He came to the lobby and told me how well the operation was going twice. I’ll never forget his joy, or mine. It was transcendent.
I’ve never asked a doctor if s/he were in it for the money or over his/her head directly, but I’m sure I’ve met a couple.
June 28th, 2009 at 5:32 pmfrom backup
“If the government supsidizes the public option it creates an artificial advantage for the public option. The same is true if you consider that the government isn’t required to turn a profit; as private providers would have to; to remain viable.”
I don’t give a crap if a private health corp goes out of business. Because of their cherry picking clients to insure and denying dr’s and patients fair payments for care…they have been screwing over these people for decades. Often resulting in peoples dying, becomming disabled and even dr.s going under because of the poor reimbursement schedule. So let the private profit making middlemen go OUT OF BUSINESS!
Single payer now!
June 28th, 2009 at 5:36 pmThanks for sharing those observations, wiley.
As I said before, I find it incredibly sad that b-cup can’t process the idea that someone would choose a profession, a life’s work, for reasons other than the opportunity to make a boatload of money.
June 28th, 2009 at 5:37 pmFrom where I “sit” the Insurance “industry” and Lobby pretty much has a stranglehold on the American people. Our Medical providers, Auto Industry, Building trades, and others in our society have been playing a game of “Hide and Seek” with the Insurance “industry” for Decades. If only the American people would begin acting, day to day, half as smart and informed as he or she think “they” are. As for the resulting destruction and resulting relocations from the Hurricane Katrina debacle, the folks of much of Louisiana and Mississippi could open eyes with their recent life stories a great deal, I am sure! Government versus the private sector, as in the Insurance “industry”, comes across as mostly bluster and/or smokescreen to me. Getting serious with “what AILS us” certainly applies with proposing expansion or improvements to our collective Medical sector.
June 28th, 2009 at 5:43 pmI’ve read comments from Tim Vaculik….give me a break…you sound like you’ve sat thru the Rick Scott/Frank Luntz GOP talking points school of “SCARE the nimwits out of fair health care” Our health care is great but the accessibility to it is pathetic. UK, Canada European countries and elsewhere have good systems. The only people complaining about those systems are the wingnuts here who don’t want reform. I’ve been to those places and people love their systems. They aren’t worried about losing their lives or life savings by getting sick because they can see a doctor even is it’s not life threatening. Try getting treated in an ER with a non life threatening health px. They laugh you out. (The bush healthcare plan….go to the ER…..what a joke)
June 28th, 2009 at 5:44 pmThe problem with backup and private for profit health care is that right now 2 million Americans go bankrupt each year because of medical costs and 75% of those people have health insurance. It aint working.
It hits the elderly harder than most groups. Why is it ok for people to lose everything so someone else can make a buck? I don’t mind profit taking but I think this goes way to far.
June 28th, 2009 at 5:55 pmStill wondering why all of these Republicans continue to appear on all of the news shows. Didn’t they lose the 2008 elections?
June 28th, 2009 at 6:02 pmRomney’s such an a hole. I hope he doesn’t get the nomination. This is the same guy who thinks americans have a right to work except when HE can make money by laying them off.
I hope someone really goes into his finances and lets him have it.
June 28th, 2009 at 6:03 pmRepublicans believe that we have a choice in our health care…paying for either food or health care…
2. Risk getting denied for pre-existing conditions if you quit your job or stay at a job that you hate for the health care…
3. The choice of talking to a friendly bureaucrat who politely denies your claim or talking to an a-hole that does the same…
June 28th, 2009 at 6:08 pmbackup Says:
why would the best students pursue medicine if it didn’t pay better than anything else?
it’s not all about money as conservatives love to claim it is…Otherwise there would be no teachers…Come to think about it, how many conservative professors are there? They always whine about liberal bias in the universities, ignoring the fact that conservative Ph.Ds always go into the private sector for more lucrative jobs…
June 28th, 2009 at 6:09 pmGreat point. There’s a difference between health care and health insurance.
Wingnuts can’t seem to keep the two separate.
June 28th, 2009 at 6:14 pmMost will agree on these simple facts:
* Most, approximately 3/4 of America want a public health insurance system.
* Congress is saying they do not have the votes.
* Congress accepts huge $ from insurance and big pharma… it is all here
We need to be on the phone, inform congress we do see the connection and will remember during election time if they voted for their contributors or US.
callcongress.org
June 28th, 2009 at 6:16 pmMy European friends who have businesses here in America go back to Europe for medical care. They don’t have to worry about going bankrupt if a medical emergency occurs. Their nations offer insurance for their citizens who live in the less civilized U.S.
The repiggies are all liars. Don’t trust them. Don’t vote for them, even for local office. They are all in cahoots with big pharma and the military contractors.
June 28th, 2009 at 6:22 pmThey are poison.
ralph. President Obama said this in his state of the union address:
Why would he think incentives for performance and rewards for success could have any bearing? Any bearing among the selfless professionals of education?
Does Obama’s insinuation that financial reward could stimulate better performance in the education system, also seem sad to you?
It may seem sad, but apparently, it’s not so far fetched, that it hasn’t influenced the President.
June 28th, 2009 at 6:45 pmI have to admit I’m not as up on this as I should be. Are there some shady financial dealings involving Romney?
June 28th, 2009 at 6:53 pmThere goes Magic Underwear talking in circles again and not making sense!
June 28th, 2009 at 6:54 pmbackup Says:
June 28th, 2009 at 6:55 pmWhy would he think incentives for performance and rewards for success could have any bearing? Any bearing among the selfless professionals of education?
=============================================================
Hey bcup: Are you insinuating that raises for teachers is a boatload of money when the true meaning is to try to keep people in the profession that is sadly underpaid because of the greedy republican philosophy?
On a serious note: Are you really that freaking stupid, and self centered? Have you never experienced anything in your life to help you realize the good in community service and receiving more in return than that you give to others. You sound as if you are a really sick man. Just saying. I would hate to be you.
I think the private sector has proven itself unworthy of trust, from the pollution of our environment to the financial meltdown to the current health care situation… Why is this system so admirable? It either doesn’t work or the Pigs can’t be trusted; either way, why beat a dead horse?
June 28th, 2009 at 6:58 pmAbolish healthcare for profit and we will not have to discuss this anymore.
June 28th, 2009 at 7:02 pmkasinca. I was only making the point that how much a profession (or any job) pays, will influence whether people pursue those positions, or stay in them. Or move on to something that pays better. Your statement:
makes me believe that you agree.
I think teachers are underpaid. I suggest that if they were paid more, the work could attract more people to the profession. If the profession had more applicants to choose from, it seems likely they could get even better candidates than they have now.
Conversely, if doctors salaries were capped or limited, the opposite would be true. If the profession paid less, less people would be interested. With less applicants to choose from, you would expect a less qualified pool to choose from.
June 28th, 2009 at 7:06 pmbackup Says:
Conversely, if doctors salaries were capped or limited, the opposite would be true. If the profession paid less, less people would be interested. With less applicants to choose from, you would expect a less qualified pool to choose from.
Backup, are you suggesting that public health care is a new and untested idea? Because all this “what if” horse poop about doctors’ wages sure sounds like it.
Do you suppose that the medical professionals in Canada, the UK, Sweden, Denmark, etc are second rate? If that was true, would the US have a consistently higher mortality rate, and infant mortality rate than those countries?
This is just so typical of you. Why not open up to reality for a change instead of always speculating about “yeah, but, what if ?” Here, explain this if you will.
June 28th, 2009 at 7:25 pmPure conjecture. Removing the profit from healthcare has nothing to do with doctor’s salaries.
Tell me this… when you look up from the mask, as you’re being put under, do you want to see a doctor who studied & made the sacrifices because the medical profession was a worthy life’s work, or because the salary was 10% higher then the next alternative profession?
Your opinion of public healthcare if purely driven by your selfish view of the industry given your personal job & benefits. Yank those away, make you an uninsured, unemployed dude & you’ll quickly see the value the others speak of. But even an insured guy like you could & would benefit if a public choice was available. If nothing else it would force your insurer to be more competitive.
June 28th, 2009 at 7:26 pmHey Mitt,
Suck on it.
June 28th, 2009 at 7:31 pmHealth care for this mannequin is pocket change – no reform needed. Try reading up on health care for human beings, pretty boy.
June 28th, 2009 at 7:33 pmWe have the best health care in the world?
Compared with 10 other industrial nations you will find:
1) Health Care Expenditures (percent of GDP)
US Highest at 13.4%
2)Infant Mortality Rate (per 1,000 live births):
US Highest at 10.4
3) Child death rate 1-4 years of age
US again 10th
4) Life expectancy
US 8th
72 percent of people polled want a public option. Democrats (and Republicans) ignore this at their own peril.
JD
June 28th, 2009 at 7:38 pmYou find people whose interest is so deep in healing their fellow man that money is truly an afterthought. Money is not the prime motivator when there’s an underlying interest, but it can make you more content with that interest.
On the other hand, you’ll find bobble heads who want to become doctors just to look good to their friends and family. Everything humane about being a great doctor isn’t in mind – some see it as Barbie operating on Ken.
I’m not sure how effective the filtering process is in the U.S. at telling the passionate doctors from those who just have money on their minds. Data on insurance malpractice rates probably doesn’t look good, if you could call that an indicator.
June 28th, 2009 at 7:44 pmWe are on the way to become a third-world backwater. Europe, which takes very good care of its citizens, and Asia are poised to take over the world economy.
It’s heartbreaking to see this occur, but not surprising. Much of our country is duplicating the pathetic circumstances found in the Muslim countries – poor education, vast discrepancies in wealth and far too much simplistic and onerous religion.
The U.S. is becoming toxic to thinking, intelligent people.
June 28th, 2009 at 7:46 pmTim Vaculik Says:
Single Payer. The end of private insurance companies.
June 28th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
Imbecile.
Private insurance companies insure things other than our health (or lack thereof), and they will survive. If they can’t, well I guess they just really can’t make it in the free market.
June 28th, 2009 at 7:56 pmI cannot compute how anybody could take seriously an advertising campaign from rich, white men who can’t get out of the spotlight and those who get their health care coverage from the government as congressman and senators. It doesn’t look like they’re succeeding with 72% approval for the public option, but they can frame the debate with their money as to give the illusion they have a following.
If our democratic-controlled congress can’t move away from taking orders from high net-worth jackals who don’t have to bother with insurance and otherwise have no issues in life, then I will officially declare representation in this country a banana republic. This is the test.
June 28th, 2009 at 7:56 pmbackup Says:
makes me believe that you agree.
===========================================================
Sad but you prove that it impossible to talk to a self serving wingnut. There is a truism that you should try to chew on for a little while.
“Contempt prior to investigation is a form of insanity.” You seem to have your mind made up and it doesn’t matter about facts or logic, you are a wingnut, one of the loser party who hasn’t accepted your role of irrelevance. Have a great eight years, whining your ass off.
June 28th, 2009 at 8:15 pmGerald Celente predict Obamageddon 2012: http://digg.com/d1v8Cx?t
June 28th, 2009 at 8:21 pmbackup Says:
If you believe in evolution, you’ll agree that Human beings are also animals. It’s reality.
I believe that the progressive idea of empathy would be to take an animal and put it in the care of a zookeeper. Feed it, care for it, shelter it, and protect it from harm. That obviously seems more compassionate then letting it fend for itself in the wild.
…blahbitty, blahbitty, blah…
Conversely, it may not really be compassionate to create dependancy by meeting every need.
June 28th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
Progressives only put animals into the care of a zookeeper because conservatives, who think the earth is their dumping ground, ruined the animal’s habitat with a housing development or toxic waste dump. As usual, progressives have to clean up conservative messes, and part of that fallout is feeding, housing, and caring for those the cons take a crap on.
We’d rather see all the little animals living on their own, since they do it so well, but once the cons get finished trashing everything around them, we’re the ones who clean it up.
F ucking cons are like spoiled children, really.
June 28th, 2009 at 8:34 pmkwsventures said,
June 28th, 2009 at 8:35 pmWingnut fearmongering at it’s finest.
The preamble to the conservative philosophy:
“There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance – that principle is contempt prior to investigation”
June 28th, 2009 at 8:43 pmHerbert Spencer
b-cup, you CAN’T really be this stupid.
Saying that there are other things that can and should motivate people in their careers besides money IS NOT equivalent to saying money is NOT a motivator.
You and your friggin’ false equivalencies, b-cup. I swear to God.
June 28th, 2009 at 8:45 pmTim Vaculik Says:
Blab blab blab blab.. Who cares what he says..
June 28th, 2009 at 8:46 pmIt’s more fear mongering.. That’s the Repugnant way..
Those losers WILL NEVER do anything decent.. It’s
all about lining their own pockets with corporate
money. PERIOD!
That’s why we must never allow Republicans to ever regain political power.
The Republican Party is an organized crime group. No Republican can ever be trusted on any issue every again.
June 28th, 2009 at 8:51 pmThe repiggie trolls are here to bully and cajole at the behest of Rupert Murdoch and his business interests, along with all the other corporate overlords of big pharma and defense.
We can’t convince those trolls of anything.
Just ignore them.
June 28th, 2009 at 8:54 pmI certainly wouldn’t be surprised if repugs actually
June 28th, 2009 at 9:10 pmpay these trolls to be here.. Minimum wage of course..
Or maybe they get 15 cents a post..
ralph. I don’t think I ever said that people were only motivated by money. It’s a significant factor (significant enough to effect people’s choices), but obviously people make choices for reasons other than how much money they can make.
We are splitting hairs. I’m sorry I brought it up.
June 28th, 2009 at 9:17 pmBackup,
I don’t know if you have ever watch the television series, MASH, but there were two types of doctors depicted in it. One was Hawkeye, the most skilled surgeon, and the one least interested in making money doing it, and Frank Burns, the least skilled surgeon and the one most interested in making money doing it.
The best Doctors are not in it for the money. Perhaps you have heard of the Hippocratic oath?
June 28th, 2009 at 9:26 pmbackup says:
Conversely, if doctors salaries were capped or limited, the opposite would be true. If the profession paid less, less people would be interested. With less applicants to choose from, you would expect a less qualified pool to choose from.
AAAAIIIIIIEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(tough to type. This new coat has its sleeves tied in the back)
June 28th, 2009 at 9:29 pm241.backup Says: Conversely, if doctors salaries were capped or limited, the opposite would be true. If the profession paid less, less people would be interested. With less applicants to choose from, you would expect a less qualified pool to choose from.
French doctors are paid less than American doctors, they have single-payer and their healthcare is rated #1. The US is #37.
Q.E.D.
Next…..
June 28th, 2009 at 9:33 pmI hope to never know that I am flying on an airplane where the pilot is only doing it for the bucks and not the love of flying and transporting people safely to their destination.
June 28th, 2009 at 9:36 pmI only knew one pilot in my life. I didn’t know him because of his skill as a pilot, but socially. He was an alcoholic and he was not the kind of person that inspired confidence.
I am sure he became a pilot for the money, and frankly, his greed motivation did not make his the best candidate.
June 28th, 2009 at 9:42 pmHow about the Wall Street Journal’s MarketWatch:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/americans-rate-us-health-care-system-lowest-among-10-nations
June 28th, 2009 at 9:46 pmNo, we are not “splitting hairs”. You are constructing another of your patented false narratives.
You essentially did say that people were only motivated by money, several times. You basically said that if doctors were paid less, they would not want to be doctors.
Unless, of course, I’m reading your rhetorical question wrong:
THEN when I pointed out that some of us, maybe most of us choose our careers for reasons beyond simply income (other commenters made the point admirably well that those who entered medicine simply because they could make a lot of money might not make the best caregivers), you implied that i had made a different point entirely — that income was an utter non-factor. Otherwise, why demonstrate the even the President recognizes the motivating power of money?
This is the kind of dishonest (or moronic, take your pick) crap that you pull all the time, b-cup. You seem to be almost entirely unable to debate honestly for more than a brief exchange, without distorting the other’s position. You’ll be more than happy to build a straw man out of it if you have to.
June 28th, 2009 at 9:47 pmbackup, psst,psssstt,
You can save $350 billion every year WITHOUT reducing doctors’ or nurses’ or janitors’ pay. You do it by cutting out the unbelieveably-massive unnnecessary extra middle layer of bureaucracy.
June 28th, 2009 at 9:55 pmgummitch. you asked me to explain this:
http://www.swivel.com/graphs/show/31605156
I’m not arguing that the U.S. has the best healthcare statistics.
But, some factors can explain why the U.S. statistics in infant mortality are ranked so low.
I’ve seen arguments that suggest that differences exist in reporting standards. The argument is that if the U.S. records nearly 100% of the actual deaths, and other countries record lower percentages of the actual numbers, because the deaths happen in rural areas or the recording methods aren’t as accurate. Those comparisons would favor those with the less accurate recording.
Additionally, there is an argument that our prenatal healthcare is effective at maintaining pregnancies that might fail in other countries with less effective prenatal care (by miscarriage) or failed premature deliveries. And that our prenatal care is effective at keeping premature babies viable. Although the pregnancies were salvaged, the resulting infants were at more jeopardy of infant mortality. Those infants compared to infants from other countries that went full term (without the complications) tend to skew the mortality rates against the country that successfully delivers the premeeies.
June 28th, 2009 at 9:55 pmKeith. I get your argument. Doctors salaries won’t necessarily be cut by the options being discussed.
June 28th, 2009 at 9:57 pmThe Medical Arts. The drive to be a skilled crafts person, scientist, and/ or artist is strong. A transplant surgeon is not likely to find work that exciting with a guaranteed income and all the perks of seniority. Combine that with a desire to heal and that’s damned compelling.
Add the promise of eliminating most of the paperwork and I think most doctors will be happy with a little less pay—there is no reason for most doctors to get much less. They’d have less paperwork, more customers.
I’d like to see the pay for GPs improve, so more doctors would settle into that so that more people could have family doctors.
Most doctors may have to be weaned off big pharma bribes and junkets, but I wouldn’t mind if the government(we) sweetened their pot a little by helping them pay off their student loans in return, and seeing if something can be done about the high cost of so much education.
June 28th, 2009 at 10:01 pmralph.
take it easy.
Here’s my point: There is a relationship to how much a job pays and it’s ability to attract talented candidates.
It’s not the only factor, but I suggest that it is the main factor.
If you don’t think people make career choices based, in large part, on the amount of money they can make, you are living on a different planet than I am.
I hope it’s a real cool planet like: Planet Hot Chicks or Planet Free Beer.
June 28th, 2009 at 10:02 pmbackup, or it could be due to the fact that 47,000,000 Americans have no healthcare. DUHHH!
June 28th, 2009 at 10:03 pmB-cup, I would be one of those people that chose a profession based upon money. I decided to become a school teacher NOT because of the money, but because I believe that children are the future of this nation and that there are few more honorable things than to try and ensure that they will be successful.
As for a public option or single payer, I would be one of those that support it. I am currently still under the coverage that I currently have (thanks to the job my mother has) but I am getting booted off of it by those lovely bureaucrats in a year (NOTE: these bureaucrats aren’t the government getting in the way… the coverage is MetLife. Those talking about government bureaucrats seem to excuse the insurance bureaucrats who get in the way just as much).
I am not out of college yet, and I am going to have a difficult decision to make: will I incur a couple of semesters worth of debt for health insurance (if I can even get it)? Or will I go uninsured (until I get a teaching job, most likely) and risk getting sick and incurring ER expenses?
I’ll leave the disdain to big business to others here. I agree that the insurance companies don’t have our best interests in mind. However, I don’t think all big business is necessarily bad, just radical capitalistic ones like what America seems to have been nurturing for a long time.
June 28th, 2009 at 10:03 pmbackup says: If you don’t think people make career choices based, in large part, on the amount of money they can make, you are living on a different planet than I am.
NOONE is saying “cut the pay of doctors or nurses or janitors”!
June 28th, 2009 at 10:06 pmKeith. I know. it’s only a sideshow discussion between me and ralph.
I concede your point.
June 28th, 2009 at 10:10 pmAdditionally, there is an argument that our prenatal healthcare is effective
Maybe it is due to a lack of prenatal care because uninsured woman cannot afford it.
June 28th, 2009 at 10:10 pmActually the high infant mortality rate is due to several factors, poverty, substance abuse and lack of heath care are just three of many.
June 28th, 2009 at 10:23 pmThat’s not what I said, and you damn well know it.
YOU were the one who was essentially arguing a monolithic motivation paradigm.
YOU were dismissing the idea that someone would choose to study medicine if he wouldn’t be paid any more than any other job.
Do people go into teaching because of the salary they can make?
Obviously not. There will always be those who are driven to teach, and if they can make their living that way, they will do so.
I’m saying there will always be those driven to heal and to serve the sick. You seem to say there are not. Unless, again, I am reading your rhetorical question wrongly:
I do acknowledge that, in my experience, the percentage of doctors who are among those “driven to serve” is remarkably low these days in this country. It’s much commonly those who “driven to earn”.
June 28th, 2009 at 10:26 pmb-cup’s right, Keith. You’ve been trying to get our friend to acknowledge something critical, and I’ve been working at cross-purposes with you. Sorry about that. I don’t now if it’s a calculated strategy on b-cup’s part, or simply some argument-preservation instinct that he possesses.
I just found his position on this issue so condescending and ill-considered that I could not help myself. And of course I was rewarded with standard b-cup debate tactics.
I should have known better.
June 28th, 2009 at 10:29 pmralph, dealing with b-cup is like nailing jello to the wall.
If anyone can do it, it’s you. :-)
June 28th, 2009 at 10:32 pmHey Zooster, it’s exactly like beating my head against the wall—-same results, only hurts my head.
ralph, I do believe backup and Republicans love facts were saying salaries would be cut before you came into it.
June 28th, 2009 at 10:40 pmoh wow… how did i miss this thread… so late, i know, but i found something so strange – well, to me – that i want to share…
or warn about, as the case may be…
Guns, health-care reform may go hand in hand
http://www2.hernandotoday.com/content/2009/jun/27/guns-health-care-reform-may-go-hand-hand/
so, really? … i don’t know what to think about it…
calling him “Daddy Big Bucks Obama” is a big clue…
June 28th, 2009 at 10:49 pmwe need TUCKY leadership back in charge! how american you are is expressly linked to how conservative you be! we need leaders once again who know how to tell the american people NO! it’s been too long since 2006 for the gop to be out of power! once we retake the majority were going to teach the american people a lesson. the gop is going to catch the person held captive trying to run away and put ‘em back in the shack!
June 28th, 2009 at 10:59 pmI read this article by Irving Fisher in The Progressive Magazine:
“At present the United States has the unenviable distinction of being the only great industrial nation without universal health insurance.
Health insurance is like elementary education. To function properly, it must be universal and to be universal, it must be obligatory.
Certain interests which think they would be adversely affected by health insurance have made the specious plea that it is an un-American interference with liberty. According to the logic of those now shedding crocodile tears, we ought, in order to remain truly American and truly free, retain the precious liberties of our people to be illiterate, to suffer accidents without indemnification, as well as to be sick without indemnification.
It is by the compelling hand of the law that society secures liberation from the evils of crime, vice, ignorance, accidents, unemployment, invalidity, and disease.”
This article first appeared in the January 1917 edition of The Progressive.
June 28th, 2009 at 11:05 pmthat meth’ll kill ya, man………. whew.
June 28th, 2009 at 11:05 pmOT, domestic terror alert:
June 28th, 2009 at 11:09 pmright now on 1190 am KEX and other stations, this bastard, Bill Cunningham is doing some real hate mongering stating if you are white you will have to pay reparations to those of color. He is ranting on and on trying to get it stirred up either for ratings,a way to bash Obama or he is insane. This guy, in my opinion is king of the pri@ks and he just may get some more nuts acting out.
yeah i’m .. a goop gooper
check it and see
i’ve got a fever of 103
c’mon baby we’ll retake the ma-jo-rity.
i’m hot-blooded, hot-blooded
June 28th, 2009 at 11:12 pmIf we can all have the same care that the government is providing for our troops we will be all set.
June 28th, 2009 at 11:16 pmthe next contract with america:
- ban voting on college campuses
- require photo id
- confirm at least 50K in federal taxes paid before polling
- require kings dominion to sell the photo i.d. with the price of a season pass.
June 28th, 2009 at 11:21 pmyou know something, we need a tighter, nimbler military, the same dick cheney and rumsfeld envisioned. cut the size of the military by at least 500,000 for that nimbler effect!
June 28th, 2009 at 11:31 pmthere was nothing nimble, or tight, or cheap, about the boondoggle that was the cheney/rumsfeld privatization sham…
halliburton et al could not measure up to the original makeup of the once self-sufficient U.S. military, serving no other purpose than to enrich a favorable few…
June 29th, 2009 at 12:16 amRummy and the rest of the clowns made sure that our soldiers in Iraq, stupidly sent there by the neo-con trash, were not properly outfitted or protected.
Moreover, they failed horribly to even plan for an uprising and the chaotic aftermath. Instead, they were going to goddamned bible study at the Pentagon.
The repiggies have been a massive, disastrous failure at everything. The ones trying to squelch the public option for health care are liars and scum.
June 29th, 2009 at 12:21 amThat great GOPsby is one talented parody troll.
Sometimes he even sounds like a real right-wing nutcase, but he knows just how to tweak his delivery to let us in on the joke. He’ll just go that extra half-step into absurdity, with just the right phrasing, to make the conservative position seem even more ridiculous than the real tighty-righties do.
It’s a delicate balance, to be sure, and the great GOPsby manages it consistently. Well done!
June 29th, 2009 at 12:25 amralph. I know you care, so I’ll break back in.
There are three reasons that teachers pursue teaching; June, July and August. And okay, they want to make a difference. you’re right.
We may be arguing two different things, because maybe these are two different types of people.
When I question why students would go into medicine if it didn’t pay well, I believe that.
Maybe I believe it, because traditionally, doctors have made a lot of money. The field has been able to attract not only those talented people that want to serve humanity, but those talented individuals that want to earn a lot of money. It would make sense that if the salaries were capped or limited, those talented people seeking the money would move on to something else. I believe that would effect the profession.
Your arguments about teachers are correct. They are a different breed. Everybody knows that you won’t get rich teaching, so I assume that a greater majority of those people would fall into the category of people serving humanity (not people seeking wealth). I concede that for teachers (the group you consider) the argument that money motivates is not as applicable.
Additionally, Keith is right. This issue about cutting doctor salaries is not applicable to this thread. And again, I’m sorry I brought it up.
All I know is that if Conservatives for Patients’ Rights tried to cut my price per post, I would eventually lose my enthusiasm to keep coming back here.
(That’s a joke).
Good night.
June 29th, 2009 at 12:28 amBTW, I think the doctor salary debate started back around #158. I think I was responding to this from your post:
June 29th, 2009 at 12:51 am
And Shayne back at around #171
June 29th, 2009 at 12:52 amb-cup, I think you just have a different perspective than i do.
You’re a conservative. In my experience, conservatives tend to focus on more concrete measures of things — money being the most concrete and easily quantifiable out there.
Conservatives tend to concentrate in high-paying professions like business.
The reason the teaching profession, academia, the arts and, to whatever extent it leans that way, journalism tend to attract more liberals than conservatives, in my opinion, is because liberals tend not to focus as much on the concrete (black and white, if you will) elements of things, like money. We focus more on the overall intangible good to be found in a type of work than conservatives seem to. (This may be why conservatives seem so terrified of higher taxes. It’s like it’s some magic boogeyman phrase to them.)
Artists don’t go into the arts for the money; the kind of wealth that movie stars or rock stars accumulate is a lottery, and show business — any business having to do with the arts — is so brutal that anyone doing it for the money will give up long before they have the chance to make it big, unless they hit it right from the start.
So why do people devote their lives to acting as a profession? Or writing? Or dance or music or painting?
Because as hard as it is, to do anything else would be harder for those artists.
Same thing with teachers, and with journalists and with any number of professions that offer modest income prospects but outsized impact on the world.
You don’t seem to buy any of this, and it doesn’t surprise me. If conservatives in general thought of these professions as honorable, they wouldn’t demean education and the arts the way they do. They wouldn’t, for instance, make the joke that you made above about “June, July and August”, if it was indeed a joke (it’s not clear).
So you can put on your “reasonable” hat and nod solemnly and acknowledge that not everyone decides what they want to do in life based on the paycheck, but you really don’t buy it. That’s what your comments here say to me.
And I still maintain that it’s a sad way to view the world. You may call it “realistic” if you prefer, but I think it’s sad. Sad and misguided. But entirely understandable from a conservative.
June 29th, 2009 at 1:00 amThere is nothing like getting payed to do work you enjoy doing. I don’t care if it requires a master’s apprenticeship, or your own autodidactic spin to a common endeveavor—when you enjoy your work so much that you almost feel like you’re cheating when you get paid, it’s a whole new level of freedom.
June 29th, 2009 at 1:12 amralph. I really buy it. I was in the mindset of thinking about doctors (I think many are motivated by money). I eventually started think about teachers and saw you were right.
I’m not demeaning teachers. Almost all my wife’s friends from college went on to be teachers. They’re cool. (That’s where I got the June, July, August – a joke from them).
Some people strive for money. Some people work for other things. Those are decisions that each individual makes.
If I’m fortunate enough to end up on the operating table of the world’s greatest surgeon and he saves me, it doesn’t really matter to me if his motivation to be great was money or humanity.
If I’m fortunate enough to be taught by the world’s greatest teacher, it also doesn’t matter if their drive was financial or altruism.
I would appreciate their service.
And I appreciate you too, ralph.
Just don’t tell the other trolls.
June 29th, 2009 at 1:16 amwiley. it doesn’t get any better than that. congratulations.
June 29th, 2009 at 1:21 amDoesn’t it make your day to get the “approval” of the great b-cup?
June 29th, 2009 at 1:46 amSounds to me like he thinks he’s controlling this thread.
As usual.
I really use to enjoy Tp.
But now it’s just a forum for B-cup to dazzle us with his brilliance or some unbalanced troll to cut and paste the talking points he’s been given.
I’m sorry, but 300 posts to spotlight b-cups brilliance is utter bullcrape.
tony and lido
I wish the hell Romney and his fellow Republicans would just admit what the rest of us already know:
the REAL reason they don’t want a public option is because it will be cheaper than the current private system. That means private insurers would have to cut costs and lower their profit forecasts; AND for the first time in decades the playing field between providers and buyers would be leveled, something, I am certain, will make them crazy. This is the whole issue in a nutshell.
What Romney and his fellow Republicans are fighting for is the status quo, i.e. a fragmented broken and bloated insurance system, bloated CEO pay and system that put shareholder profits before the welfare of the people they are supposed to help.
June 29th, 2009 at 9:27 amGame of Life Says:
Gawd, how shallow, useless and pathetic.
Thanks for the support gamer !
June 29th, 2009 at 9:57 amYour approval is so . . necessary.
But it did require the government to force people to buy health insurance.
It’s still government mandated health insurance.
This is why the Republicans suck. They talk about small government, but then when they are in power they use the state on you just as much as Democrats.
June 29th, 2009 at 10:47 amThe unaffordable Romneycare health insurance scam mandates me to pay $440/month with a $4000 deductible! And since I can’t afford that, Romneycare fines me almost $1000/year in fines.
As a trust fund baby from the lucky sperm club, Romney can afford it with his daddy’s money, but most of us can’t.
June 29th, 2009 at 11:13 amOnly a Republican could come up with a plan to charge you for the health care you can’t afford.
June 29th, 2009 at 11:37 amTim Valicula is a g*dd*mn*d f**king liar.
Where are the links proving a single one of your points, Tim?
You are worse than a troll. You p*wned me into thinking you MIGHT have a legitimate point, but you got nothin’. Nothin’ but your ‘manager’s and his wife’s word” for it, i.e., YOUR neocon word for it.
Which is shit.
June 29th, 2009 at 4:14 pm