ThinkFast: July 1, 2009
ThinkFast: July 1, 2009
75 percent of Americans who have been “pushed into personal bankruptcy by medical problems actually had insurance when they got sick or were injured.” Many experts say that fixing the health care system won’t mean “simply giving everyone an insurance card.” Too many Americans “already have coverage so meager that a medical crisis means financial calamity.”
The pharmaceutical lobby group PhRMA and the consumer health care advocate group Families USA are launching today a “multimillion-dollar national television advertising campaign to urge lawmakers to pass quality, affordable health care reform.” Watch the ads here.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates is looking at way to make the law prohibiting gays from serving openly in the armed forces “more humane” until Congress eventually repeals it. “One of the things we’re looking at is, is there flexibility in how we apply this law?” Gates said.
Chief Justice John Roberts succeeded in leading the Supreme Court on a “patient and steady move to the right” this term. While the court took “mainly incremental steps in major cases,” Roberts’ “fingerprints were on all of them, and he left clues that the court is only one decision away from fundamental change in many areas of the law.”
National Security Adviser Gen. Jim Jones told U.S. military commanders in Afghanistan last week that the Obama administration wants to focus on carrying out a strategy for “increased economic development, improved governance and participation by the Afghan military and civilians in the conflict.” “The piece of the strategy that has to work in the next year is economic development,” Jones told Bob Woodward.
The Environmental Protection Agency yesterday “granted California the right to enforce a 2002 law that mandates deep cuts to automotive greenhouse-gas emissions through 2016.” The move “stands to give California regulators the power to drive national fuel-efficiency standards in the future.” The new standards “effectively call for average vehicle fuel efficiency to exceed 35 mpg by 2016, up from roughly 25 mpg today.”
International oil companies “responded to the [Iraq's] first oil auction in more than 30 years with grumbles and just one deal.” Under the deal, Iraq’s oil ministry will pay BP $2.00 per barrel it produces. Other companies, including Exxon and Chevron requested higher rates “than what the oil ministry was willing to pay.”
The Washington Times reports that House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) reversed his opposition to a controversial hazardous waste project that his wife was involved with. Conyers wrote a letter in July 2007 “in support of permit transfers for a hazardous waste injection well project in the city of Romulus, Mich., which was operated by a company with ties to Mrs. Conyers.”
Two weeks after Sen. Daniel Inouye’s (D-HI) staff contacted federal regulators, the Hawaii-based bank, Central Pacific Financial, announced it would receive $135 million from the Treasury Department. The bank holds the bulk of Inouye’s personal wealth. “Many lawmakers have worked to help home-state banks get federal money. … But the Inouye inquiry stands apart because of the senator’s ties to Central Pacific.”
And finally: Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) is confident that she could beat President Obama in a long-distance run. “I betcha I’d have more endurance,” Palin remarks in a new interview with “Runner’s World.” “My one claim to fame in my own little internal running circle is a sub-four marathon.” She also reveals that “sweat is my sanity” and “I feel so crappy if I go more than a few days without running. I have to run.”
Sign up here to receive our daily e-newsletter, The Progress Report.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
The repiggies continue to lie about the effects of a public option on health-care in this nation.
That party is utterly vile.
Please don’t vote for any of them, even for local office. They are all in on this crap.
July 1st, 2009 at 9:02 amHouse Republican Leader John Boehner, a longtime golfer, will tee off with Tiger Woods and Dallas Cowboys quarterback Tony Romo at tomorrow’s Pro-Am charity golf tournament at the A T&T National. -CNN
My money’s on Tiger here, folks. Boner does tee me off, but I don’t think he has enough balls whip Woods.
July 1st, 2009 at 9:08 amThe Boner will play golf with Jesus on Saturday.
July 1st, 2009 at 9:10 amDoc Hussain Matt says:
Beck on Franken victory: “This is like having me in the Senate. … it shows that we’ve lost our minds”
Dr Freud rears his head again, Beck admits he’s lost his mind.
July 1st, 2009 at 9:14 amI can out run the president… Sarah, that’s a very meaningful and adult subject to debate over with the president. Very relevant and on topic as usual.
July 1st, 2009 at 9:14 amWhy don’t you challenge the president to see who can hold their breath longer too!
It’s the insurance companies that are making the health-care system go off the rails.
July 1st, 2009 at 9:16 amPalin stated she listens to old Van Halen & AC/DC while running.
I’m thinking ‘Highway to Hell’ would be an appropriate campaign theme, as well.
Or, ‘Bridge to Nowhere Over Troubled Waters’?
July 1st, 2009 at 9:18 amjimmcdosh Says:
Seems to me the current health care system is a runaway train. I think Government interventon will only make things worse!
So you are willing to the the train crash without even trying to stop it? Healthcare should be provided by the Gov, just like mail service. I agree that these half measures, these compromises are crap. We shouldn’t be using taxpayer money to continue to support the current system of high priced policies that don’t actually insure people when they need it. These insurance companies are parasites that are sucking the life out of our economy and should be broken up.
July 1st, 2009 at 9:18 amRight wingers need to get out of the way of the progression of America.
July 1st, 2009 at 9:19 amSarah Palin is connecting with her moronic base (emphasis on the word “base”).
July 1st, 2009 at 9:19 amBeck’s not a pundit, he just plays one on TV.
July 1st, 2009 at 9:19 amDr. Hussein Matt Says: Little Becky attempting to compare himself to a Harvard graduate is quite embarrassing.
Good catch, Doc.
Few people realize Senator Franken is a Harvard grad. He, reportedly, was a ‘numbers guy’ & focused on mathematics.
Beck, Limpballs, Hannity…all College dropouts.
July 1st, 2009 at 9:20 amThe public option for health care is now the preferred option in Europe and in Canada. Why can’t it work here?
Europeans and Canadians who wish to buy additional private insurance do so.
Those privately insured have private room options and the like.
How many Europeans and Canadians do you know that have renounced their access to their home nation’s health care system?
Fight the repiggie lies about the universal health care systems in Europe and in Canada.
The repiggies only care about the health of insurance companies. They adore the wealthy people and the corporate fat cats.
They don’t give a damn about your health or your financial security.
July 1st, 2009 at 9:22 amIt takes a higher intellect to be a good comedian.
Hence the lack of right wing intentional comedians (rush, sean, beck, etc are funny, but not on purpose)
July 1st, 2009 at 9:23 amRantingTommy Says:
Right wingers need to get out of the way of the progression of America.
And they can start by taking batshitbachman’s advice to not fill out their census forms. Every single one.
July 1st, 2009 at 9:25 amGod, please take me back to the time before I ever heard the name Sarah Palin!
July 1st, 2009 at 9:27 amAnd finally: Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) is confident that she could beat President Obama in a long-distance run. “I betcha I’d have more endurance,” Palin remarks in a new interview with “Runner’s World.”
And I betcha Sarah could dunk her head in a bucket 3 times and pull it out twice, if only she could refrain from being distracted by shiny things and turkeys getting their heads removed. I betcha could Sarah!
Shheeeesh, Alaska has a junior high student for Governor and Alaskans actually voted this airhead into office. Wonders never cease.
July 1st, 2009 at 9:28 amI suspect that all these aging chubby white guy “pundits” are already diabetics that are dealing with impotence issues.
A lot of rage, a lot of rage…
July 1st, 2009 at 9:28 amTawdry Says:
God, please take me back to the time before I ever heard the name Sarah Palin!
Once you let that magic smoke out of the computer chips, you can never put it back in again.
July 1st, 2009 at 9:30 amif there was a god there would never have been a sarah palin
July 1st, 2009 at 9:32 amI am in awe of Sarah Palin. How does she find the time to run, when she has all these other duties and activities? I mean, it must take a lot of time to read every newspaper and magazine printed in the world, hunt and field dress moose, take care of all your RNC clothing, make up stuff to say about the Democrats, practice and deliver brain-numbing speeches, and keep her “seductive” gestures well-honed. And this list doesn’t even cover governing and parenting duties.
I, too, worry about her sanity and with great empathy suggest that Sarah Palin drop her other activities and just run – the farther away, the better.
July 1st, 2009 at 9:32 amAnd finally: Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) is confident that she could beat President Obama in a long-distance run. “I betcha I’d have more endurance,” Palin remarks in a new interview with “Runner’s World.”
She has a history of running from reality.
July 1st, 2009 at 9:32 amI applaud Sarah Palin’s dedication to physical fitness. This is an example to all of us regardless of political ideology, and should motivate more of us to get in better shape than we are.
However, running isn’t the only measurement of athletic ability. While Palin may have more endurance than President Obama in a footrace, I bet he could clean her clock in a game of HORSE.
July 1st, 2009 at 9:32 amrun, sarah, run
July 1st, 2009 at 9:33 am“sweat is my sanity”
“never let ‘em see you sweat”
July 1st, 2009 at 9:34 amSweat is my sanity…
Wet is my Hannity…
July 1st, 2009 at 9:35 amThe pharmaceutical lobby group PhRMA and the consumer health care advocate group Families USA are launching today a “multimillion-dollar national television advertising campaign to urge lawmakers to pass quality, affordable health care reform.”
finally.
i sent some info to TPs hot tip link, hoping for MORE info…
hoping for more than a blurb on the FAST thread…
“The pharmaceutical lobby group PhRMA” was headed by Billy Tauzin – to refresh your memory:
* after the 1994 elections, Tauzin was one of the cofounders of the House Blue Dog Coalition
* on August 8, 1995 Tauzin himself became a Republican, claiming that conservatives were no longer welcome in the Democratic Party
* During his tenure, he left his mark on issues ranging from natural gas, airline, trucking and electricity deregulation to the Clean Air Act, Superfund and the historic Telecommunications Reform Act of 1996. In addition, he was the original author of the Securities Litigation Reform Act and the Cable Act – the only bills over the past decade to become law despite a Presidential veto.
* Tauzin had played a key role in shepherding the Medicare Prescription Drug Bill through Congress, which had been criticized by opponents for being too generous to the pharmaceutical industry. [*wiki]
that would be the infamous “Part D”?
the one that seniors are so “happy” with, according to those tv commercials…
so, now the guy wants to HELP OUT?
REALLY???
somebody with more cred than me should check all that out…
think?
July 1st, 2009 at 9:36 amRoberts’ “fingerprints were on all of them, and he left clues that the court is only one decision away from fundamental change in many areas of the law
July 1st, 2009 at 9:37 am———————————
Isn’t this what the Conservatives call judicial activism, exactly the thing they’re prejudging Sotomayor with.
With the Roberts’ court we can only hope the Progressive wing of about 120 members finally organizes to effectively blunt the worst impulses of Blue Dogs and Corporate Dogs inside the Democratic Caucus. Start with health care reform and clean air policy then send a signal to all by canceling the F-22 program. Find the money by ending the Medicare fraud by prosecuting insurance and pharma corps. to the full extent of the law and getting rid of Bush tax cuts. Put some teeth to legislation to force the outing of right wing leaning Dems then let the Internet do its’ best work, cutting them down.
July 1st, 2009 at 9:38 amIOKIYAR
July 1st, 2009 at 9:38 am” Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) is confident that she could beat President Obama in a long-distance run. “I betcha I’d have more endurance”
Not when it comes to winning national elections you don’t, you whacked out freak
July 1st, 2009 at 9:39 amWhen contemplating Sarah Palin, one question comes to mind:
drug abuse or head injury?
July 1st, 2009 at 9:53 am75 percent of Americans who have been “pushed into personal bankruptcy by medical problems actually had insurance when they got sick or were injured.
Yes, but at least they have a choeece. Life is all about the choeeces you make.
July 1st, 2009 at 9:55 amRantingTommy Says:
When contemplating Sarah Palin, one question comes to mind:
drug abuse or head injury?
The answer is yes and yes.
July 1st, 2009 at 9:56 amRanting Tommy says:
If there was a God, there never would have been a Republic party.
I fixed it for you :-)
July 1st, 2009 at 10:01 amWhile recovering from a difficult fight with cancer, on January 3, 2005, the same day he left Congress, Tauzin began work as the head of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, or PhRMA, a powerful trade group for pharmaceutical companies.
[...]
Two months earlier, Tauzin had played a key role in shepherding the Medicare Prescription Drug Bill through Congress, which had been criticized by opponents for being too generous to the pharmaceutical industry.
This link was explored at great length in an April 1, 2007 interview by Steve Kroft of 60 Minutes. The report, Under the Influence, pitted Rep. Walter B. Jones (R-N.C.) and Rep. Dan Burton against Tauzin and accused him of using unethical tactics to push a bill that “the pharmaceutical lobbyists wrote”. Their claim is supported by CSPAN video, the fact that it was the longest roll call in the history of the House of Representatives, and the 3 a.m. voting time. Along with Tauzin, many of the other individuals who worked on the bill are now lobbyists for the pharmaceutical industry. Michael Moore’s 2007 film Sicko levied similar criticism.
Tauzin now is on the Board of Directors at Louisiana Healthcare Group.
-wiki
July 1st, 2009 at 10:04 ammisscoleopteramolly Says:
I applaud Sarah Palin’s dedication to physical fitness. This is an example to all of us regardless of political ideology, and should motivate more of us to get in better shape than we are.
GWB was a runner too…
July 1st, 2009 at 10:16 amDoes Billy Tauzin still love his momma?
July 1st, 2009 at 10:27 amWaiting for Bush’s SecDef to rescue gay military members?
For shame, President Obama.
YOU’RE THE COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF OF THE US ARMED FORCES.
A simple order from you placing a stay on discharges under DADT is all it would take to make the situation “more humane” for gay members of the military until Congress repeals the policy.
Take a stand on it, coward.
Quit placating the bigots who make up the military’s senior leadership.
July 1st, 2009 at 10:27 amThe most absurd part of this quote, for me, is Beck comparing himself to Al Franken.
I mean, I know Beck thinks of himself as a comedian (despite all evidence to the contrary) but jeezus, that is like comparing William Hung to Bono.
July 1st, 2009 at 10:28 amBobwurst Says
July 1st, 2009 at 10:16 am
GWB was a runner too…
___________________________________________________________
Yep — he didn’t have many redeeming qualities, but that was one of them.
July 1st, 2009 at 10:31 am43. watchdog Says:
And yet, watchdong, it’ll still be more than a decade before Republicans return to power. Suck it up.
July 1st, 2009 at 10:31 amWhile in Congress, he held several leadership positions, beginning with his chairmanship of a Merchant Marine Subcommittee, which oversaw legislation related to the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska. In September 1995 he was named Deputy Majority Whip; he is the first American to have been part of the leadership of both parties in the House. In an effort to promote a spirit of bipartisan cooperation on Capitol Hill, he co-founded and served as Co-Chairman of the Mainstream Conservative Alliance, better known as Republican “Blue Dogs.”
boy… talk about “spin”…
http://www.phrma.org/about_billy/
and, mcwars, guessing his momma is probably gone by now…
July 1st, 2009 at 10:35 amThis whole notion of having a public option and decreasing costs while is not even logical. There is a reason we have so many of these procedures that are supposedely not necessary. It’s because of the trial lawyers. Doctors are forced by necessity to submit every patient to every possible test whether needed or not. Why is this? Because if they don’t and the patient is actually sick then the doctor gets sued.
Please liberals, attempt to try to analyze a little deeper beyond what you are told.
July 1st, 2009 at 10:35 amoops – i meant to add [tauzin] instead of “he”…
July 1st, 2009 at 10:36 am“while” what, roark?
also, you should know by now, those tort costs amount to less than 1% of health care costs…
what you just said, points to the need for INSURANCE CO. reform…
July 1st, 2009 at 10:38 am1%… costs… something like that…
July 1st, 2009 at 10:40 amIt is because of the insurance companies and their mad desire for total wealth that we are in such a mess.
The public option works just fine in Europe and in Canada. The majority of the U.S.
taxpaying population wants it here.
Please, repiggies, try to analyze a bit deeper.
July 1st, 2009 at 10:40 amevangenital Says:
Sweat is my sanity…
Wet is my Hannity…
I always thought that Hannity was all wet…
July 1st, 2009 at 10:49 amAh, yes… Howard Roarke shows up to preach to us that what is wrong with health care delivery is… lawyers.
Not insurance companies who are in the business of selling policies and then denying coverage. Not pharmaceutical companies that market drugs directly to consumers rather than doctors, not insurance policies designed to limit portability and which force people without coverage to burden emergency rooms with routine medical issues.
It’s the lawyers. No matter that malpractice premiums account for one-half of one percent of health-care costs. No matter that, as Harvard economist Amitabh Candra points out in Bloomberg, “No serious economist thinks that saving money in med mal is the way to improve productivity in the system. There’s so many other sources of inefficiency.”
Nope. It’s all the fault of the lawyers.
This is why the Right never solves problems — only makes them worse.
July 1st, 2009 at 10:50 amKaty-
“also, you should know by now, those tort costs amount to less than 1% of health care costs…”
Cause or effect? Think about it.
evangenital-
Go ahead and explain to me in a logical step by step process how we got in this mess. This should be good.
July 1st, 2009 at 10:51 amYou know, roark, if people feel that private hands aren’t managing the pool of premiums efficiently, and if they want the profit motive out of managing that pool, the public OPTION should exist for their choosing.
It’s because of the trial lawyers.
Cartoonish talking point.
Doctors are forced by necessity to submit every patient to every possible test whether needed or not. Why is this?
Maybe the tests are a cash cow they can charge up to the patient and insurance companies, costs that are passed on to consumers and taxpayers. One reason insurance is so darn expensive is because the insurance companies refuse to negotiate with hospitals; therefore, when they actually decide to pay out a claim, they pay too much.
July 1st, 2009 at 10:53 amRantingTommy Says:
if there was a god there would never have been a sarah palin
Hah! Didn’t you see the email where Sarah P. claims she is God?
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/06/30/palin-god/
July 1st, 2009 at 10:54 amCause or effect? Think about it.
Sure. How do you efficiently reform the health care system through increasing incentives for doctors to botch procedures?
Second, the right should stop touching health care. Today’s version of the party has too little experience or regard for anything humane to have a say in the most humane practice.
July 1st, 2009 at 10:56 amthanks, ralph!
July 1st, 2009 at 10:57 amAyn Rand is so 90’s. Please, repiggies, don’t even attempt it.
She would never buy your control freak approach to “morality.”
The European system works very well. I lived in France for four years.
I took advantage of the system, with no problem from the French.
A sickly weak population will contribute vastly to the irreversible decline of this nation.
The repiggies tell lie after lie about universal health care. Their only priority is the well-being of the health insurance executive class.
July 1st, 2009 at 10:59 am“You know, roark, if people feel that private hands aren’t managing the pool of premiums efficiently, and if they want the profit motive out of managing that pool, the public OPTION should exist for their choosing.”
Don’t you see though? Obama claims that through this public option costs will be cut and that is how the plan will be cheaper. However, when you decrease cost, demand will increase. Something has to give when you increase demand while decreasing cost. That something will inevitably be either quality or quantity. What does that mean? Either rationing or decreasing quality of care. And since we supposedely have a poor quality already why would we want to decrease that quality even more?
July 1st, 2009 at 11:00 amMegaloptera McWars Says:
[...]
Maybe the tests are a cash cow …
no maybe about it.
many test facilities and such are OWNED by the doctors…
imagine that…
July 1st, 2009 at 11:00 amHere’s a question for you:
Is it ethical for a doctor to order a medical test that can be performed at the facility that the doctor has a financial interest/ownership in? Is that a conflict of interest and in the best interest of the patient?
For example, let’s say Doctor A has a practice and also owns the local MRI clinic. If the doctor prescribes the diagnostic MRI procedure for say 50-75% of his patients (even if they don’t need it) and gets to make an additional profit off of them, shouldn’t that be a conflict of interest? Would this example make it more or less likely that the doctor who also owns the MRI clinic will routinely suggest the procedure? Shouldn’t there be some disclosure to the patient in cases like this?
July 1st, 2009 at 11:01 amwow, that pork, er, roark, guy is all over the place confused…
and wrong…
many here are well qualified to set the record straight…
i don’t have the patience…
July 1st, 2009 at 11:06 amHoward Roark/John Galt sees himself as some neo-Randian intellect, ready to unleash the mighty power of the Holy Market on us mere mortals.
July 1st, 2009 at 11:09 amDemand will increase through premiums, cheaper premiums, paid into the system. That’s the gist of the program — started with seed money and sustained mostly through its premiums. The public option will further spread risk, reduce overhead, and result in significant savings.
Give them the option. If they gravitate over to the public option, it will further expose insurance companies and actually force them to improve as a result of public outrage. Something they haven’t considered up to this point.
The passion of those who argue with more vigor against an option that doesn’t even exist than for improving the massive inefficiencies in the private system is revealing.
July 1st, 2009 at 11:10 am“Ayn Rand is so 90’s. Please, repiggies, don’t even attempt it.”
Check this out.
Clearly Rand is no longer relevant to the populace. Evangenital, you do your political party a diservice through your ignorance. Skip the generalities, platitudes, ad hominems, red herrings, and all other unproductive dialogue. It is possible to have a civil discussion with someone you don’t agree with and that is what I am trying to do. Take a clue from Katy, she seems like she is at least trying to be civil.
July 1st, 2009 at 11:10 amI don’t want to step on the toes of a good poster like evangenital, but lemme take a crack at this…
We got into this mess by deciding to rely on an employer-based insurance model in the forties, I believe, rather than a national system as was implemented in the UK (in the immediate aftermath of the war, amid all that destruction, no less).
When the primary work experience in this nation was career-long attachment to a single company or long-term union employment, this model worked well enough. Coverage was steady, predictable and was in the best interests of the employer as well as the employee.
As that stable system began to break down, however, and employees could no longer count on more than a few years at any one company, portability of coverage became an issue and insurers realized, it was in their better interests to limit that portability.
As conservatives pushed deregulation of virtually everything in the 1980s, the health insurance industry took advantage and recognized that the more procedures they denied, the greater their profits. As the industry’s influence over government grew, so did laws favoring its interests expand. And since portability (read: choice of vendor) was limited by policy restrictions, waiting periods and “pre-existing conditions” clauses, the consequences of such consumer-unfriendly moves were limited. Premiums began a steady rise that has now priced out of the market about one in six Americans. And those Americans tax the rest of the system when they need health care, because health care is not like normal consumer goods; one does not have the choice to do without when necessary. One can do without a new TV, or without new clothes or a new computer. This downward pressure on prices keeps those markets in balance.
There is no such downward pressure on health care coverage.
So an inefficient system grows more inefficient with each passing month.
Free market principles do not apply to this industry because consumer choice is severely restricted, as I said.
The consumer does not have the choice to simply drop one vendor and choose another without risking a waiting period with no coverage, or double-paying a premium that already takes a huge chunk of one’s monthly nut.
If the consumer has a “pre-existing condition” that choice is restricted even further.
And again, since the consumer does not have the choice to do without treatment when injury or disease dictate, the insurance industry finds itself with a captive market and almost no incentive to control costs.
That’s how we got into this mess.
July 1st, 2009 at 11:11 am“The passion of those who argue with more vigor against an option that doesn’t even exist than for improving the massive inefficiencies in the private system is revealing.”
You assume that I’m a.o.k. with our current system. Think again.
July 1st, 2009 at 11:11 amEither rationing or decreasing quality of care. And since we supposedely have a poor quality already why would we want to decrease that quality even more?
We’re No. 37 in the world for health care. Countries that have public system easily outrank us. The U.S. is in a good place with medical technology, but access to that technology is weak.
Even if the U.S. had the best medical system as you proclaim, what good is it if access is reserved for the privileged few while the rest are at the mercy of the insurance lottery?
July 1st, 2009 at 11:17 amA typical mistake of the Right; viewing health care as a standard consumer good.
Demand will not increase because of lowered costs.
Demand for health care will increase to a certain point, because too many Americans are denied the care they need now, but it will quickly reach a point where demand stabilizes where everyone who needs care receives it.
The only people who would overindulge the opportunity to see a doctor because it was cheap would be hypochondriacs. I don’t think we want to base our system of health care around the vital task of keeping hypochondriacs from taking advanatage, do we?
July 1st, 2009 at 11:17 amralph has just Borked Howie.
snicker
July 1st, 2009 at 11:22 amYou assume that I’m a.o.k. with our current system. Think again.
That’s good of you. But the proposal isn’t to ration care — that already exists in the private insurance market. Reform has many components — some of which are prevention, maintenance, and nutrition. That helps to manage the risk pool and, most importantly, keep people healthy. Real health reform would include moving the population away from an obesity trend and cutting down on big procedures through access to routine checkups, tests, etc.
July 1st, 2009 at 11:25 am“Even if the U.S. had the best medical system as you proclaim, what good is it if access is reserved for the privileged few while the rest are at the mercy of the insurance lottery?”
Again Mega, please stop assuming things. It’s clear you are intelligent. Don’t pollute the conversation with what you think you are hearing.
July 1st, 2009 at 11:26 amJim McDoosh…flagged for spamming
July 1st, 2009 at 11:27 am“Demand will not increase because of lowered costs.”
This type of thinking is laughable at best. You think that healthcare is the only thing that is averse to the law of supply and demand? The next time you see a sick coworker, ask him/her why they don’t go to the doctor. Odds are good (and I know that we’ve probably all been there) that it’s because they don’t want to pay for the co-pay or they don’t have insurance and don’t want to pay for it out of pocket. Now, if you decrease that cost do you think that same person will go? I think you and I both know they would.
There, we’ve come up with a example of how decreased costs increase demand, even in healtcare. Now multiply that by the number of people in America and the number of times each person sniffles and you have that many visits to the doctor.
July 1st, 2009 at 11:32 amWell, you are pretty civil in your debate, and certainly not stupid.
Keep in mind, I don’t necessarily support carbon-copying the health care system of other countries, but I think it is a great idea to take pointers. America can do it better, and with enough effort, we can do it better than any country.
No objection from me if you feel that I’m putting words in your mouth. I don’t want to make your points for you – that’s a sign of arrogance.
July 1st, 2009 at 11:32 amRoark Says:
Again Mega, please stop assuming things. It’s clear you are intelligent. Don’t pollute the conversation with what you think you are hearing.
just answer the question…
we’d all love to know your answer…
’cause ralph KNOWS that he is hearing the facts… the truth…
which, obviously, YOU aren’t…
that’s all for this one, from me…
July 1st, 2009 at 11:34 amcarry on… silent readers are learning…
excuse me… that would be Megaloptera McWars, not ralph…
both doing a great job!
July 1st, 2009 at 11:36 am“But the proposal isn’t to ration care –”
Well, of course not, no legislation is made with ill-intentions. I’m not a conspiracy theorist who thinks that liberals are trying to take over the world or something like that. However, just because the intentions are good does not mean that the effects will also be positive.
My point is that rationing must happen with a finite product, it’s self evident.
July 1st, 2009 at 11:36 amWhat I gleaned from ralph’s post: strains on a new & improved system will spike at first because of the damage wrought out the current system and people who will flock over to seek relief. But over time, the strains on the system will ease as there will be a healthier spread across the population and better managed costs.
July 1st, 2009 at 11:37 amRoark Says:
Don’t you see though? Obama claims that through this public option costs will be cut and that is how the plan will be cheaper. However, when you decrease cost, demand will increase. Something has to give when you increase demand while decreasing cost.
July 1st, 2009 at 11:00 am
____________
It’s health care, not widgets. The usual Econ 101 supply-and-demand methodology doesn’t work.
Are you suggesting that people will get sick more if the cost of getting treated is lower? They’ll spread more diseases? Get injured more often?
Or will they visit their doctors more often for preventative care? Will they have screenings and checkups more often? Will they stop waiting until a mild problem becomes a life-threatening illness? If so, the chances of preventing health problems will increase, which will save on the cost of expensive treatments in the future.
Either way, lowering the cost increases utility.
July 1st, 2009 at 11:38 amRoark Says:
The next time you see a sick coworker, ask him/her why they don’t go to the doctor. Odds are good (and I know that we’ve probably all been there) that it’s because they don’t want to pay for the co-pay or they don’t have insurance and don’t want to pay for it out of pocket. Now, if you decrease that cost do you think that same person will go? I think you and I both know they would.
July 1st, 2009 at 11:32 am
_______________
Ahh, I see. So in the current system, health care is only available to those with insurance or those with the economic means to pay out-of-pocket costs. In other words, it’s available to some people but not all, and only in small quantities.
And how is this not “rationing” of health care?
July 1st, 2009 at 11:41 amKaty,
There is a solution, or better put a combination of solutions, to decreasing costs while increasing efficiency (which would increase coverage).
Among other things,
- Get rid of the FDA
- Slow down the trial lawyers (to assume that the only cost associated with malpractice suits is malpractice insurance is simplistic at best)
- Give consumers a tax deduction for premiums, putting the choice of insurance providers in the hands of consumers, giving consumers an incentive to get the best bang for their buck.
- Eliminate(or phase out) medicare and medicaid.
That’s a start.
July 1st, 2009 at 11:43 amMore GOPigge talking points.
The always handy “special interests groups” straw man.
It is obvious you don’t remember your first visit to any doctor or test facility. In California, in your first visit you are handed an “Arbitration Agreement” which basically states you still retain your right to sue your doctor/practitioner but the resolution won’t be carried by a court, judge, and a jury. Instead of the usual, long process of civil court, your lawyer and the malpractice lawyer/insurance company will try to find a mediator/arbiter and settle out of court.
The receptionists are instructed to flat out tell the patient that if the patient doesn’t sign the agreement, the doctor won’t see/treat the patient.
Even a doctor who might have been treating a patient for years, if instructed by his malpractice insurance, will ask his patients to sign again the agreement on a periodic basis, for example, once a year.
Because medical insurance companies are NOT in the business of providing health care. Their business is COLLECTING PREMIUMS and PAYING AS LITTLE AS THEY CAN FOR THE CLAIMS.
July 1st, 2009 at 11:45 amI’m sorry to cut this dialogue short right now, I hope to get back to it a bit later but I have a meeting to get to.
I really enjoy the discussion everyone! Keep on caring! Although I disagree with you I believe it’s important for you to care….afterall, apathy is lame.
July 1st, 2009 at 11:47 amNo, I didn’t say it was “the only thing”, did I? As someone once said recently, “Don’t pollute the conversation with what you think you are hearing.”
No shit. But as I said, demand would increase to a point, something you’re ignoring. That demand would quickly stabilize. It’s not an infinitely expandable market, as most consumer goods theoretically are.
The goal is to provide health care, much like the goal of universal education is to build an educated populace — something working democratic systems require.
Again, you’re pretending that the initial increase in demand (where those who are now denied access would receive that treatment they need) would be a constant condition of the system.
It would not. Any successful health care reform would result in the very conditions you decry — lowered costs and greater access. Since you see these as danger signs, is it fair to say that you are against health care reform? If not, what would this reform look like, if it did not achieve both lowered costs and greater access?
When you decide to treat my argument as stated –including the provision that lowered costs would result in increased demand only to a point of equilibrium — then we can talk. Until then, you’re simply restating your misunderstanding over and over again.
The idea that every one, or even most people, would go to the the doctor every time “each person sniffles” tells me you aren’t interested in taking this discussion very seriously.
July 1st, 2009 at 11:48 amRoark Says:
My point is that rationing must happen with a finite product, it’s self evident.
July 1st, 2009 at 11:36 am
_____________
Doctors are not a finite natural resource. They’re a renewable resource. We can make more of them, and we can import them if necessary.
July 1st, 2009 at 11:49 amThank you, katy. I haven’t even checked for other posts – I’ve been here a long time!
Roark, good on you for taking a more sane view of liberals. It’s refreshing.
The U.S. under a free-market system is experiencing a shortage of primary care physicians. The taxpayer covers subsidies for public medical schools and funding for research in even the private institution (Johns Hopkins, a private university, is the largest recipient). While the taxpayer plays a big role in putting a doctor through medical school (maybe not the tuition, but the research that leads to curricular enhancement), we can’t force that doctor to move to a specialty that reflects the public’s needs — not that I would propose in any way that the government do so.
So, yes, the existing doctors would take on heavier caseloads with increased access. But if it’s one thing a doctor must do already, it’s have the stamina to help as many people as they can; do the work of 5-6 people. But, again, as ralph pointed out, stress on the system would initially increase and then be alleviated with an overall healthier population.
July 1st, 2009 at 11:50 ami’m sorry… i usually keep my word… but:
- Get rid of the FDA
the pigs almost, and in effect, DID…
and we got LEAD IN TOYS, E-COLI IN FOOD, DEATHS FROM MEDS
ETC
ETC
ETC.
you’re done.
July 1st, 2009 at 11:50 amWow.
This one lives in a much different world than I do.
The FDA is the problem? Medicare is the problem?
Just wow.
July 1st, 2009 at 11:54 amGood point, toasterhead. The nation’s medical schools turn away well qualified applicants all the time (good applicants want to go to good schools, which also brings me to the point that we need more good medical schools).
July 1st, 2009 at 11:55 amDoctors order the tests because in a for profit system they get paid more the more money they make for their bosses. It is almost impossible to get a lawyer to take a malpractice suit unless the doctor was grossly negligent and then the patient had to be suffering from something that is 100% curable if the doctor hadn’t messed up. Still the costs of legal fees is less than 1% of healthcare costs and is just a talking point used to fool idiots like you.
July 1st, 2009 at 11:56 amRoark Says:
Among other things,
- Get rid of the FDA
- Slow down the trial lawyers (to assume that the only cost associated with malpractice suits is malpractice insurance is simplistic at best)
- Give consumers a tax deduction for premiums, putting the choice of insurance providers in the hands of consumers, giving consumers an incentive to get the best bang for their buck.
- Eliminate(or phase out) medicare and medicaid.
That’s a start.
July 1st, 2009 at 11:43 am
_____________
Interesting plan. So you’re working on the demand-side, then. Once you’ve killed off all the old people and poor people in the country by letting them eat e coli-infected food and take untested medications and then denying them the ability to treat these infections and poisonings through Medicare and Medicaid, the rest of the country will benefit from the tax coupon you’re giving then on their health insurance premiums.
I hadn’t thought of using genocide to solve the health-care crisis, but it just might be crazy enough to work! Good plan, ace!
July 1st, 2009 at 11:56 amYIKES — eliminate the FDA?
If the Bush years were any indication, the expedited approval process benefiting the corporate benefactors was the closing thing to scrapping the agency itself.
July 1st, 2009 at 11:58 amYou are forgetting:
July 1st, 2009 at 11:58 am
Again, how will our nation survive with an increasingly impoverished and sickly population?
This survival of the fittest crap makes for great conversations in your early 20’s, but reality has an incredible way of biting libertarianism right on the ass.
The “market” is a self-perpetuating monopoly, dedicated to the most profit with the least pay-out. Continuing our presence course will soon bring our system to total collapse.
July 1st, 2009 at 12:00 pmMegaloptera McWars Says:
Good point, toasterhead. The nation’s medical schools turn away well qualified applicants all the time (good applicants want to go to good schools, which also brings me to the point that we need more good medical schools).
July 1st, 2009 at 11:55 am
______________
And one could argue that if the nation’s health care system was focused more on patients than profits, it’d attract a more talented pool of doctors and improve the quality of care. I’m sure plenty of potentially good doctors turn to other professions because they don’t want to take part in the bullshit for-profit system.
July 1st, 2009 at 12:08 pmBernie Sanders is now calling on the Democrats to get going on the health-care question, and to block any repiggie attempt at filibuster.
I have just read that Alabama and Mississippi, two of the most repiggie areas in the nation, are the two leading states with obese populations. Virtually all the top ten states with obese populations are in the repiggie South.
July 1st, 2009 at 12:16 pmAn ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure
Even if there is an initial increase in demand, the long term per capita health care costs will stabilize as the general population becomes more healthy and productive.
July 1st, 2009 at 12:16 pmThis Roark guy is a genius. There already is a deduction for insurance premiums. They combine with out of pocket medical expenses and are all deductible once they exceed a certain level of your income.
July 1st, 2009 at 12:18 pmAwww, crap. Next thing you know, Sarah Palin’ll be telling us that “life is like a box of choc-lates”…
Spare me.
July 1st, 2009 at 12:21 pm63. Roark Says:
July 1st, 2009 at 11:00 am
—————–
Let’s just say others cede to you the points you made in your post.
(Note: as your assertions were addressed by numerous others later in the discussion, your points are not ceded)
But let’s just say the points are ceded to you.
Guess what?
At that time, should it happen the way you assert, people will have a CHOICE to leave that plan and enter another plan that they CHOOSE.
Isn’t CHOICE a wonderful concept, Roark?
July 1st, 2009 at 1:12 pm“Interesting plan. So you’re working on the demand-side, then. Once you’ve killed off all the old people and poor people in the country by letting them eat e coli-infected food and take untested medications and then denying them the ability to treat these infections and poisonings through Medicare and Medicaid, the rest of the country will benefit from the tax coupon you’re giving then on their health insurance premiums.
I hadn’t thought of using genocide to solve the health-care crisis, but it just might be crazy enough to work! Good plan, ace!”
Hey, nothing like some good old fashioned simple minded fearmongering! I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again. The problem with liberals is they can’t see more than one step ahead.
Have you ever thought what the real reason for current insurance companies not caring about preventitive care is? Put yourself in the insurance company decision makers chair for a second. You know that the most expensive time for healthcare in a persons life if when they are old. You also know that the government currently foots the bill for this expensive healthcare. What would incentivize you to even want to use preventitive care? Nothing, you don’t see the benefit in it.
July 1st, 2009 at 2:54 pmyou really believe that shit, roark?
you sound like an insurance salesman… or the like…
wow.
now, i promise, no more for you…
July 1st, 2009 at 3:06 pmHey, what a shocker! I come forward with logical, civil dialogue and you respond with……empty ad hominem attack.
July 1st, 2009 at 6:15 pm