Former Top Insurance Exec Blows The Whistle On Health Insurance Companies’ Plot Against Reform
Former Top Insurance Exec Blows The Whistle On Health Insurance Companies’ Plot Against Reform
In an interview with PBS’ Bill Moyers on Friday, former health insurance executive Wendell Potter revealed that health insurance companies had developed a concerted strategy to discredit Michael Moore’s movie SiCKO:
BILL MOYERS: And there was a political strategy. “Position Sicko as a threat to Democrats’ larger agenda.” What does that mean?
WENDELL POTTER: That means that part of the effort to discredit this film was to use lobbyists and their own staff to go onto Capitol Hill and say, “Look, you don’t want to believe this movie. You don’t want to talk about it. You don’t want to endorse it. And if you do, we can make things tough for you.”
BILL MOYERS: How?
WENDELL POTTER: By running ads, commercials in your home district when you’re running for reelection, not contributing to your campaigns again, or contributing to your competitor.
Potter, the former head of Corporate Communications at CIGNA, said he thought Moore “hit the nail on the head with his movie,” which advocated that the government-run systems of other western democracies produce better health care outcomes. The health insurance companies “don’t want you to think that it was a documentary that had some truth,” Potter said.
The companies “biggest concern” is that the United States might adopt “a broader program like our Medicare program” which “could potentially reduce the profits of these big companies.” He added that “we shouldn’t fear government involvement in our health care system. That there is an appropriate role for government, and it’s been proven in the countries that were in that movie.” Watch it:
See part 1 of the interview here.
Potter said he was driven to speak out when “it became really clear to me that the industry is resorting to the same tactics they’ve used over the years, and particularly back in the early ’90s, when they were leading the effort to kill the Clinton plan.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
I wonder why the librul media hasn’t picked up on this? Could it be that they are not so librul after all?
July 13th, 2009 at 10:04 amOkay, I apologize for being such a wanker, but as a movie geek I feel like I should say “Sicko” was only nominated in 2007; “Taxi to the Dark Side” won.
July 13th, 2009 at 10:04 amI know a number of Bush/Cheney voters who are starting to radically change, now that their health insurance has been cancelled by the providers.
I lived in France for four years. They have a fabulous system, and they take good care of their citizens.
We need to challenge the repiggies constantly over their “pro-life” baloney, because their support of the continuance of our onerous system is “anti-life”
July 13th, 2009 at 10:13 amand poses a danger to the future of this nation.
In his interview with Bill Moyers, Wendell Potter mentioned Heather Podesta, lobbyist for CIGNA and other for-profit health care companies.
http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/lobbyist.php?lname=Podesta%2C+Heather&id=U0000002236A&year=2009
July 13th, 2009 at 10:13 amThe majority of Amnericans know that the insurance companies are ripping us off; the rub lies in that the convoluted system we have now is the devil they know and the proposed reform is the devil they don’t know. That, and the fact that the majority of Americans are covered by insurance (albeit, expensive, selective, inconsistent, and capricious) makes them vulnerable to claims from the right wing that the costs are sky-high.
July 13th, 2009 at 10:14 amPeople must be educated in that what they pay for premiums, co-pays and deductibles only to find out that they sometimes are not covered at all, and weigh that against what the universal plan would cost.
Thanks soze16, I took that out.
July 13th, 2009 at 10:16 amHeather Podesta is John’s sister-in-law.
So?
Do you agree with your in-laws?
July 13th, 2009 at 10:18 amThe movie SICKO should be mandatory viewing for everyone who has any question about health care.
July 13th, 2009 at 10:19 amJohn Podesta has been very clear that he’s advocating on behalf of President Obama’s health care plan. In this interview with Ed Schultz, he said we need to attack back against insurance companies’ influence:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHt4mUD1AJI
July 13th, 2009 at 10:20 amMoney over people….THE AMERICAN WAY.
GOD PUKES AT AMERICA!!!!
July 13th, 2009 at 10:21 amBILL MOYERS: Yeah, I just read the other day, in THE WASHINGTON POST, that Max Baucus’s staff met with a group of lobbyists. Two of them had been Baucus’s former chiefs of staff.
WENDELL POTTER: Right.
BILL MOYERS: I mean, they left the government. They go to work for the industry. Now they’re back with an insider status. They get an access, right?
WENDELL POTTER: Oh, they do, they do. And these lobbyists’ ability to raise money for these folks also is very important as well.
Lobbyists, many of the big lobbyists contributed a lot of money themselves. One of the lobbyists for one of the big health insurance company is Heather Podesta, the Podesta Group, and she’s married to Tony Podesta, who’s a brother of John Podesta.
BILL MOYERS: Who used to be the White House chief of staff.
WENDELL POTTER: Right. Right. And they’re Democrats. And my executives wanted to meet with — and when I say my, the people I used to work for–
BILL MOYERS: At Cigna.
WENDELL POTTER: Yeah, wanted to meet with Hillary Clinton, when she was still in the Senate and still a candidate for president. Well, that’s hard to do. That’s hard to pull off, but she did. That just shows you that you can, through the relationships that are formed and that the insurance industry pays for, by hiring these lobbyists, you can your foot in the door. You can get your messages across to these people, in ways that the average American couldn’t possibly.
BILL MOYERS: So it’s money that can buy access to have their arguments heard, right?
WENDELL POTTER: That’s right.
BILL MOYERS: When ordinary citizens cannot be heard.
WENDELL POTTER: Absolutely right. It’s the way the American system has evolved, the political system.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07102009/transcript2.html
July 13th, 2009 at 10:22 amState of the division throws a cat out there, hoping it will distract…..
July 13th, 2009 at 10:23 amSo state, show where john met with these “lobbyists”
Otherwise you are just reporting on what someone’s cousin or in laws are doing. Does anyone you know have someone in prison? Does that make the whole family a bunch of criminals.
Stop trolling.
July 13th, 2009 at 10:27 amBill Moyers interview with Wendall Potter = CAT
July 13th, 2009 at 10:28 amMoyers is a national treasure – the mainstream media won’t help, but if we could get these stories out the public while the repugs ridicule health care saying it is no more necessary than food…
Hell, the public might be so outraged they could DEMAND that single-payor be put on the table!
This is an issue the dems could CRUSH repugs with.
July 13th, 2009 at 10:29 amFred, I never mentioned John Podesta, Faiz did. You are free to ignore Mr. Potters references to blue influence.
July 13th, 2009 at 10:29 amFred, you’re also free to watch the whole video of the interview:
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07102009/watch2.html
Be sure to explode in anger when Wendell gets to his “troll arming” words.
July 13th, 2009 at 10:32 amThis just shows how out of touch with reality you are jo. This is a very controversial issue even among those of us who want universal care. You can imagine how confused and misinformed those who get their info from thier bosses and churches must be about it.
July 13th, 2009 at 10:32 amThis story would be great inoculation against the propaganda like when congress critters proclaim to their constituents “Go work for the federal government” if you want the same socialized health care that they have.
July 13th, 2009 at 10:33 amThey can’t stop health care reform. The only thing they can do now is water down the public option to make it ineffective. If they give us a shit sandwich after all of this and tell us it’s roast beef, heads are going to roll.
July 13th, 2009 at 10:33 amFred – shows how out of touch YOU are
Public, 3 out of 4 wants change.
Even more than half of repugs do.
There is rarely such a national consensus on any issue. Any “controversy” is base on the obscuration of the repugs, special interests, and media.
But, as always, a few facts never get in your way.
July 13th, 2009 at 10:35 amYou tried hard to link them and besides, just because potter said they are democrats doesn’t mean it’s true. I doubt it very seriously.
July 13th, 2009 at 10:35 amHere is some data about the nations support for meaningful healthcare reform.
There is much more out there if you look. Note that even single payer has a broad base, even though it is flamed with dishonest rhetoric about “communism” and even all the major dem candidates took it off the table during the primaries.
July 13th, 2009 at 10:37 amBut you were suggesting that dems could “DEMAND single payer”
Not necessarily the change that all want to see. I do but not all and probably not the 2 out of 4 that you dishonestly try to imply.
July 13th, 2009 at 10:38 amDo you want a bureaucrat between you and your Doctor?
Ummm, no, but do you want a giant insurance corporation between you and YOUR Doctor?
Rescind all Congressional health care until we have true reform.
July 13th, 2009 at 10:47 amTracist, why didn’t you include the first part of the sentence you quoted?
Here, let me help you:
Moore “hit the nail on the head with his movie, which advocated that the government-run systems of other western democracies produce better health care outcomes”
Oh, I see. you wanted to create the impression that it was Obama who was advocating something that you remember him saying repeatedly that he isn’t.
Noting that the quote applied to Michael Moore’s movie would have undercut that subtle impression. Sorry to have messed it up for ya.
July 13th, 2009 at 10:47 amBy running ads, commercials in your home district when you’re running for reelection, not contributing to your campaigns again, or contributing to your competitor.
It will always be like this until we pass some form of campaign finance reform that forbids corporate contributions to political campaigns. Until that time, we will remain the United Corporations of America.
July 13th, 2009 at 10:48 amTotally agree. Moyers hasn’t been very cheery lately, but he is essential.
Heck, the last uplifting episode of the Journal that i can recall was I think last autumn when he highlighted the documentary Playing for Change.
July 13th, 2009 at 10:50 amralph the wonder locust Says:
“Tracist, why didn’t you include the first part of the sentence you quoted?”
let me help you out with this one, ralph. cancervatives like twaccciiee cherry pick what they read to suit their needs.
July 13th, 2009 at 10:53 amLet’s hope he gets wider coverage than PBS, which, BTW, is heavily funded by insurance and pharma, and had already censored some healthcare reports. In fact, it’s amazing this was allowed to air. Maybe Moyers had to personally force it on.
July 13th, 2009 at 10:54 amNo I wasn’t fred, but that at least explains the mix-up.
It is my opinion that they probably could if they had the gumption to do so, but that is not what I was saying.
They certainly CAN deliver meaningful change and I will defer what that is to others as long as:
1. universal coverage
2. which means people have access because they can actually AFFORD it.
And we cannot fix the holes in our economy and the employment sectors until these 2 things happen.
July 13th, 2009 at 10:55 amPublic opinion which is overwhelmingly in favor of health care reform has been shaped by two things, costs and personal experience. The costs for health insurance has skyrocketed and even people who have a health plan with their employer have seen large increases. Almost everyone has had to deal with insurance companies because of non-payment of claims or denial of coverage. The public favors a public option which the insurance industry has characterized a government run health care program with bureaucrats making health decisions. This argument is getting very little traction. This is why the lobbyists are out hustling Congress. Thus far, Obama has been holding back the option of going over the heads of the Congress. It is unclear if Obama will crank up his campaign network to put pressure on the conseraDems. I would hope that this pressure will be applied as the legislators negotiate the bill. Everyone should be contacting their legislators to make their opinion known. The best way to pressure the fence sitters is to contact them and threaten to make campaign contributions to who ever opposes them in the next election. This can be done by anyone even if you don’t live in the legislators districts. That might give them pause to think before they cave in to the lobbyists.
July 13th, 2009 at 10:57 ambilbo – goes a little farther than that.
This is actually all enabled by the scam SCOTUS ruling in 1800s that proclaims corporations have all the rights of human beings, BUT NO HUMAN BEING IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THEM!
SANTA CLARA COUNTY v. SOUTHERN PAC. R. CO (1886)
It was not actually part of the majority decision, a scribe political hack misrepresented the case in his summary of the decision (which no one else actually reads).
July 13th, 2009 at 11:00 amralph, my impression is that he would have liked to retire, pass the torch to others, and know that real journalists with courage still had a voice.
But he knows that when he’s off the stage, there will not be anyone with his credibility and voice keeping the tradition alive.
July 13th, 2009 at 11:02 amWhile I was in the waiting room at my doctor’s office the other day, CNN was on the brand-new wide-screen TV the office had just put in. One of those anti-public-option commercials about ‘putting a government bureaucrat between you and your doctor’ came on. I was severely tempted to throw something hard at that nice new TV! (BTW, my doctor is FOR a public option, has been for years.)
July 13th, 2009 at 11:04 ambejeebus, tracy, that kind of statement can get you stalked and flamed here EVERYDAY!
July 13th, 2009 at 11:05 amHasn’t Obama said that he would like a single-payer system, but that it would be too much of a drastic change?
July 13th, 2009 at 11:07 amI think Tracist just admitted cherry-picking a quote in order to leave a false impression.
Perhaps this is a turning point for Tracist?
July 13th, 2009 at 11:08 amAJ displays his “poor-me” persecution complex again
Is he going to give this thread a Joe-Job like he did last night?
July 13th, 2009 at 11:10 amUosdwis Says:
Let’s hope he gets wider coverage than PBS, which, BTW, is heavily funded by insurance and pharma, and had already censored some healthcare reports. In fact, it’s amazing this was allowed to air. Maybe Moyers had to personally force it on.
PBS will be lost to us until such time as President Obama kicks the conservatives Bush put on the board off. Once Bush stacked the PBS Board with conservatives, it ceased to be a “public” broadcasting station.
July 13th, 2009 at 11:16 amKeith Says:
Hasn’t Obama said that he would like a single-payer system, but that it would be too much of a drastic change?
I believe that he did say he favored single payer a long time ago. But he dropped it during the campaign. He knew that jumping from the system we have now straight to single payer was way too big of a jump for most Americans to make. I think he’s wrong on this but it is something that our current Congress would never allow to happen. They don’t listen to their constituents, they listen to the corporations who are giving them the money to get reelected.
Campaign finance reform is badly needed to help save this country.
July 13th, 2009 at 11:17 amTracy__5 Says:
“Once Bush stacked the PBS Board with conservatives, it ceased to be a “public” broadcasting station.”
And if an when Obama stacks them with liberals it will continue cease to be a “public broadcasting station”. Right?
And what makes you think that President Obama would stack the board with liberals? Has he done that anywhere else in his administration or in the government?
July 13th, 2009 at 11:19 amUm… this one:
This statement, combined with your truncating of the sentence in your previous post, leads to a conclusion that you intended a casual reader to assume that Obama, rather than Michael Moore, was advocating a government-run plan.
July 13th, 2009 at 11:20 amTracy__5 Says:
“I think Tracist just admitted cherry-picking a quote in order to leave a false impression.”
What false impression? You need to give your comrades some more intellectual credit than automatically thinking that they wouldn’t have read the intro to this thread.
Don’t worry T5 – we are all well aware of the fact that you are a lying, cherry picking, hypocritical Republic troll. Your reputation is safe.
July 13th, 2009 at 11:21 amTracy__5 Says:
And if an when Obama stacks them with liberals it will continue cease to be a “public broadcasting station”. Right?
RIGHT! Conservatives want everything to be corporate, liberals want things that benefit the public.
July 13th, 2009 at 11:22 amIf Obama were to stack the board with liberal ideologues, as Bush did with conservatives, then, yes, that argument could be credibly made.
If he does not do that — if he instead fills the board with responsible leaders and administrators who recognize the value of a truly independent public broadcasting outlet — then you have no argument.
July 13th, 2009 at 11:23 ampags2 Says:
Public opinion which is overwhelmingly in favor of health care reform has been shaped by two things, costs and personal experience. The costs for health insurance has skyrocketed and even people who have a health plan with their employer have seen large increases. Almost everyone has had to deal with insurance companies because of non-payment of claims or denial of coverage.
I would love to see Moveon or some other liberal organization run the original Harry and Louise ad and then end it with, “I guess that canard of ‘be careful what you wish for’ is true because the for-profit health care industry has done to us everything they said a government run program would do.
July 13th, 2009 at 11:23 amBilbo @ #45, I agree.
July 13th, 2009 at 11:24 amThe answer to that would be yes if they fired someone like Bob Edwards after 20 years on the job without justification, despite the fact that 5 million listeners tuned in regularly every morning.
July 13th, 2009 at 11:27 am75% of bankruptcies are due to major medical issues & the inability of the average American to afford paying what corporate insurance denies.
83% of Americans favor a public health care option.
Even Iranians are offered public health coverage.
America is rated 37th in quality of health care coverage.
Why do Republics want the USA to become a 3rd World Country?
July 13th, 2009 at 11:29 amPeople who get health care paid for by their employers have no idea how much money their employer pays. That is all money that can’t go towards the employees salaries. Congress was talking about taxing health insurance benefits that were over $17k a year. Perhaps it should be required that employers inform workers how much is spent and it might change the outlook of workers.
July 13th, 2009 at 11:35 amBecause 3rd World countries are easier to loot.
… Duh.
July 13th, 2009 at 11:39 amZim,people like Rick Scott and Robert Luntz are the people telling the re-pukes and blue dogs that the gov`t can`t compete with private health care and if so why is the health care industry paying millions in lobbying fees everyday?Because they know that the gov`t can and will make H.C. cheaper and better,These guys are scared stiff about gov`t run H.C. and rightly so.Why do we spend twice as much per person in this country on H.C. than any other country?because it`s profit driven and disgusting in my book as well as yours.Health care is the biggest obstacle we have to face in returning our economy around so that more small businesses can compete and hire more people.70 percent of Americans work for small business and they are getting smaller day in and day out.
July 13th, 2009 at 11:43 am“Rescind all Congressional health care until we have true reform.”
Yes, but don’t stop there.
Rescind all government-worker health care until the taxpayers get what the taxpayers want.
Limiting it to Congress members is token at best, and the health insurance industry would probably just GIVE them free coverage in that event. Votes are very valuable, you know.
The corrupt insurance industry would not do the same for all government workers.
I have nothing against these workers, but enough is enough. We taxpayers are subsidizing their healthcare, and getting screwed at the same time.
July 13th, 2009 at 11:51 amBut just in case, you’re ready to cherry-pick. You’re really not fooling anyone, Tracist.
You still have never mentioned Michael Moore in all your excuses, but you’ve mentioned the President several times, including claiming that your point was “You have to remember that politician many times say one thing and do another” despite there being no mention of Obama in the article.
Oh, I give my fellow posters here quite a bit of intellectual credit. I didn’t say anyone fell for it. I just said you tried.
July 13th, 2009 at 12:00 pmDo you mean “King of Surf”? If so, what does Gerry Lopez have to do with your twisted view of liberalism?
July 13th, 2009 at 12:02 pmThe way private healthcare is administered in this country is absolutely horrendous!
btw, you mean “serf”, unless you are talking about hanging five through the pipeline.
July 13th, 2009 at 12:02 pmdang, beaten to the punch by Ralphie, again!
July 13th, 2009 at 12:05 pmpoor little tracist, always getting beaten up
I guess if you’re a pansy little wimp, being a republican comes natural
July 13th, 2009 at 12:09 pmBut that would be another lie of yours.
Careful how you bandy about the word ‘lie,’ Tracy… you don’t want to start that whole mess again, do you?
July 13th, 2009 at 12:09 pmTracy__5 Says:
You don’t view Eric Holder or Rahm Emanuel as liberals?
Once again T5 is disingenuous in it’s reply. We were talking about “stacking” the board. So you consider two liberals in President Obama’s administration to be “stacking” his administration with liberals.
The day you become honest T5 is the day you will be on the road to becoming a real human being. I’m not holding out any hope for you, though.
July 13th, 2009 at 12:11 pmAmerica’s health insurance companies have killed more Americans than Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda, and the Taliban combined. They don’t care about America or Americans. They don’t care if Americans are sick or healthy, live or die. They only care about increasing profits and their multimillion dollar salaries.
July 13th, 2009 at 12:12 pmhey mental midget, as has already been pointed out to you, it’s “SERF” not “SURF”
wow you are dense, no wonder you’re a right winger
July 13th, 2009 at 12:13 pmHmm… that was a remarkably strong comeback… for Tracist, anyway.
Let’s recap: “I know you are but what am I?” and “that’s a lie!”
Yes, exceedingly strong… again, for Tracist.
July 13th, 2009 at 12:13 pmTracy__5 Says:
#49
“…liberals want things that benefit the public.”
And control how they are administered. It’s nothing but the ‘ol king and surf mentality.
And this one expects us to believe that it is an architect and a professional? But it doesn’t know the difference between “surf” and “serf”. Right T5, we get it that you can be anything you want to be on the internet.
July 13th, 2009 at 12:13 pmWe know that the ‘King and surf mentality’ leads to a Blue Hawaii…
Is Tracy indicating that it leads to other states going blue as well?
Everybody’s surfing now, c’mon on Safari with me!
July 13th, 2009 at 12:14 pmThe best way to deal with a troll is to ignore it.
July 13th, 2009 at 12:15 pmAssuming Tracist actually means “king and SERF“… that’s exactly how I’ve always heard feudal systems described: “everyone’s equal”.
Yeah, those classic egalitarian feudal societies… good reference, Tracist.
Wow. Just wow.
July 13th, 2009 at 12:15 pmDammit! You nailed it. THAT’S what Tracist was going for; ELVIS in a SURFING MOVIE!
Sorry, Tracist, shoulda seen that one.
July 13th, 2009 at 12:17 pmEven one as amusing to toy with as Tracist?
July 13th, 2009 at 12:18 pm“king and surf”
Would that be King Crab and Lobster?
July 13th, 2009 at 12:21 pmo, but it’s so fun to toss it around some first
July 13th, 2009 at 12:22 pmBilbo Hussein Baggins Says:
I would love to see Moveon or some other liberal organization run the original Harry and Louise ad and then end it with, “I guess that canard of ‘be careful what you wish for’ is true because the for-profit health care industry has done to us everything they said a government run program would do.
I think an ad with someone being denied coverage by an insurance company and/or a doctor who is told the insurance company refuses to pay and a reference to the argument about the government coming between you and your doctor would work also. The voice over could say something to the effect that the insurance companies are coming between you and your doctor. That would be far more effective because it meets the anti-public argument head on. It will resonate with the public more than the anti-public option because there are many people who have been in that position.
July 13th, 2009 at 12:24 pmI realize your reading level isn’t up to par with most of the architects you work with, but there’s this thing in language called a “paraphrase”. From the link:
A paraphrase typically explains or clarifies the text that is being paraphrased. For example, “The signal was red” might be paraphrased as “The train was not allowed to proceed.
Note that the paraphrase is also placed within what are called “quotation marks”. As you can see by following the link, quotation marks can be quite grammatically complicated and do not strictly mean the text within them are a direct quote, although that is one of their meanings.
So your simplistic misguided correction can be excused on the basis of your limited of language and grammar, which you display each time you post.
You’re welcome.
July 13th, 2009 at 12:27 pmI’d try to explain jobs and schedules to you, but it would take too much time.
July 13th, 2009 at 12:29 pmThere must be someone like that in rural PA somewhere…
July 13th, 2009 at 12:30 pmMost of the visitors are clever enough to recognize sarcasm without much of a hint. Some, obviously, need more of a broad signal. I’ll take note and in the future, when I’m responding to you, Tracist, I’ll spoon-feed you this way: I’ll end each sarcastic comment with
/snark
Would that work for you?
(Here’s a hint: feudal societies — y’know the ones with “kings and surfs (sic)” — were not egalitarian in any sense. See, that’s what made your statement so amusing. Just for future reference.)
July 13th, 2009 at 12:31 pmOr maybe they show up because they’re “regulars”. Or you become a “regular” because you show up every morning. Oh, nevermind. /eyeroll
July 13th, 2009 at 12:32 pmReally? Here’s the “first one”: the statement i paraphrased as “I know you are but what am I?”
Let’s see… Tracists denies something, and then accuses me of being the same thing.
Judges? Does that not sound like a version of “I know you are but what am I”?
Seems like a textbook example to me.
July 13th, 2009 at 12:37 pmPoster #3 said: “I know a number of Bush/Cheney voters who are starting to radically change, now that their health insurance has been cancelled by the providers.”
It’s like I say, there is no better democrat than a Repbulican that’s been burned by the system.
July 13th, 2009 at 12:41 pmSo you agree that you denied something.
That’s step one.
Now all we need is to get you to recognize that you then accused me of the same thing you were denying, and we’re in business.
Here, let me help you:
Part one — denial.
Part two — accusation of same charge that was denied.
That, in a nutshell, is “I know you are (accusation) but what am I (denial)”.
So my paraphrase stands, despite you falsely saying that it “sucks”.
July 13th, 2009 at 12:53 pmOy, I didn’t mean you, Tracy, show up every morning. I meant the people who are regulars show up every morning. OK I shouldn’t have said regulars show up every morning I should have said most mornings. But you were the one questioning why the regulars show up. Remember?
July 13th, 2009 at 12:59 pmShayne, it appears that everything has to be spelled out for our little Tracist. It seems if we phrase things in a manner that most normal people would understand in terms of meaning and intent, Tracist will misunderstand it.
And, coincidentally, he will misunderstand usually in a way that is the most unflattering way possible for those with whom he is struggling to communicate.
It’s a shame, but I’m trying my best to help him along.
July 13th, 2009 at 1:05 pmFirst, you ought to look up the definition of the word “conspiracy“. And you should know that, as one who understands the meaning of the word, I would never claim that a “conspiracy” was on a single person’s part.
Oh, I see. Your use of “fool” as a descriptor noun is incompatible with your use of it as a verb, is your argument. Point taken. But… how could I have been a “fool” if your intent was not to “fool” anyone? Either your characterization of me was unkind and unwarranted, or your denial was not genuine.
Or else you’re parsing words to within a centimeter of their lives in a desperate attempt to shed your jester’s hat.
So you agree that it’s a valid paraphrase, even though in your opinion, it “sucks”. I disagree, but I think we’re making progress.
July 13th, 2009 at 1:14 pmWow, what an ego on this one.
Here’s a hint, Tracist — most of us show up and comment on threads whether you’re here or not.
July 13th, 2009 at 1:19 pmhey ralph, the sun comes up every day when I wake up
it must be all about me!
July 13th, 2009 at 1:29 pmThis just screams for public financing of federal elections just so these insurance companies cannot use their financial muscle in these inappropriate ways. It is like I have said before, if you want a meaningful health insurance plan with a public option then you must first have public financing of federal elections. In fact, public financing of federal election will break a logjam of many worthwhile bill that cannot today be passed because of the muscle being exerted by capitalist powerhouses.
July 13th, 2009 at 1:43 pmDallasNE Says:
This just screams for public financing of federal elections just so these insurance companies cannot use their financial muscle in these inappropriate ways……
We already have public financing for the presidential elections and that is optional for the candidates to take the money. The problem is the politicians and lobbyists who are governed by laws that have all sorts of loopholes. The law should bar all gifts, services, etc., to the politician, government employee and their families. No exceptions, not even for a lunch or dinner.
The second issue is the campaign laws which allow all sorts of artifices for corporations, unions, etc., to get around campaign contribution limits. The law should restrict all contributions to a certain amount for anyone who is eligible to vote. Some of these campaign contributions are being made to the party or PAC committees. PAC’s should be abolished and limit the yearly contribution to a party. The laws are simple because there are no exceptions. Penalties for violations should be high enough to deter anyone who tries to get around the laws. Once the lobbyists can’t throw their money around Congress, they may as well pack up and go home.
July 13th, 2009 at 2:05 pmhanshiro says: You’re attacking the poster not the post.
Another Joe says: You are a stalker/flamer and anyone that reads the threads can see it if they look.
Another Joe says: You are a stalker/flamer and anyone that reads the threads can see it if they look.
Another Joe says: You are a stalker/flamer and anyone that reads the threads can see it if they look.
July 13th, 2009 at 2:07 pmTracy, let me give you a hint…If liberals do not see Eric Holder or Rahm Emanuel as liberals, then THEY PROBABLY AREN’T. You only know the conservative caricature of a liberal…
July 13th, 2009 at 2:09 pmit’s not someone who disagrees with the wingnuts, because then Chuck Hagel would be one too, after he spoke out against the war in Iraq…
July 13th, 2009 at 2:10 pmThis one’s for Faiz, since he posted the link to the Ed Show interview with John Podesta. Igor can check it out as well.
http://stateofthedivision.blogspot.com/2009/07/obamas-new-surgeon-general-eschewed-pay.html
July 13th, 2009 at 2:22 pmTracy__5 Says:
“So you consider two liberals in President Obama’s administration to be “stacking” his administration with liberals.”
That was just a sample. Do you require more?
No T5. Since you can’t show any example of President Obama “stacking” any board or commission with Liberals we can all conclude that you are full of it. But then we knew that and didn’t need any further proof.
July 13th, 2009 at 2:26 pmpags2 says:
I am talking about House, Senate and Presidential. And I am talking about this being the only money that can be tapped into. No PAC money, no party money, no in-kind services, no 524 assistance — nothing except for the public money.
July 13th, 2009 at 2:27 pmDallasNE Says:
pags2 says:
We already have public financing for the presidential elections and that is optional for the candidates to take the money.
I am talking about House, Senate and Presidential. And I am talking about this being the only money that can be tapped into. No PAC money, no party money, no in-kind services, no 524 assistance — nothing except for the public money.
You are talking about one billion dollars for elections, maybe more, from the public. I think that would be unfair because some candidates who could never raise enough money through private contributions would tap into the federal money.
July 13th, 2009 at 2:33 pmTracy__5 Says:
You falsely said I was trying to fool people here by not using the full quote.
Any time one of you righties cherry pick part of a sentence or part of a paragraph you are trying to fool people. If you weren’t, you would use the whole quote. The fact of the matter is that if you couldn’t lie, obfuscate or cherry pick quotes, you would have zero to say. As it is, what you have to say is worthless to anyone with an IQ out of room temperature range.
July 13th, 2009 at 2:36 pmSo Obama’s cabinet doesn’t count as any type of a board or commission?
Seems to me he nominated several Republicans to serve on his cabinet… and although Gregg backed out, La Hood and Gates accepted.
Strange…
July 13th, 2009 at 4:03 pmFor more on the lobbying Podesta family:
http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/firmsum.php?lname=Podesta+Group&year=2009
Brother Tony’s firm has a number of health care firms on its client list.
July 13th, 2009 at 4:09 pmDon’t forge the BusinessWeek article on D.C.’s uber lobbyists:
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_04/b4117048416966.htm
July 13th, 2009 at 4:11 pmWhy do you continue to equate Republican with conservative?
Why do you continue to equate Obama’s cabinet with liberal, that’s the question…
July 13th, 2009 at 4:30 pmObama is a liberal. It only seem prudent that his cabinet would consist of people of like minds.
Ahh, so you agree that it would be wise for Obama to appoint some true liberals to his cabinet?
Awesome!
July 13th, 2009 at 4:49 pmCorrect me if I’m wrong, Tracy, but your argument seems to be this:
1)Obama is a liberal ’cause I say so.
2)Therefore it would make sense for him to ’stack’ boards with other liberals, ’cause I think that’s the way it works.
3)All the Republicans who work with Obama aren’t real conservatives ’cause I say so.
4)I decide what makes sense ’cause I say so.
Brilliant and well played, sir. I wish you great success in the upcoming ‘It’s my ball, so what I say goes’ tournament.
July 13th, 2009 at 4:59 pmWise as to now cause him to be distracted from his mission of empowering the federal government even further.
Re-read and post again.
This is nonsense.
July 13th, 2009 at 5:01 pmTracy- you wrote this:
Wise as to now cause him to be distracted from his mission of empowering the federal government even further.
That is nonsense. As in it makes no sense.
‘Wise as to now cause him to be distracted…???’ WTF?
To your other ‘points’
1) Is he not a liberal? On what issues is he conservative?
As you pointed out on this very thread, Obama has said he is opposed to a single-payer system at the moment. Hardly liberal.
2) How else do you get your agenda thru? In appointment cases it certainly isn’t thu voting on issues.
He has to deal with Congress, not the Cabinet, to ‘get his agenda thru [sic]‘ He appoints people to the Cabinet who will help him deal with Congress- since I assume that you will admit that there are some ‘conservatives’ in Congress it would make sense to appoint some people who at least ’speak the language,’ would it not? Lord knows I have a hard time understanding you…
3) And thousands of others say the same thing. BTW who in that list your presented do you consider to be truely conservative?
Ahh, so you and ‘thousands of others’ say so… so it must be so. Good to know. Me and ‘thousands of others’ say that single-payer is the best option for healthcare in the U.S. therefore it is so. I don’t particularily care if anyone on the cabinet meets your criteria for a ‘truely’ [sic] conservative member of his cabinet… you see, I find people who are ‘truely’ [sic] conservative to often be less than efficient and reasonable. So I wouldn’t expect them to be appointed to any positions with any real power…
4) What doesn’t make sense to you yet again?
You.
July 13th, 2009 at 5:22 pmWhich entity would be this so-called single payer?
WE, The People…
So LaHood has no real power? You equated Republican as meaning conservative, so why was he appointed by Obama?
Should we go around in circles, again? Now LaHood is a conservative to you? I argued that someone you would consider ‘truely’ [sic] conservative is probably someone I would consider unfit for leadership. That’s why I wrote this:
That’ because you are a liberal. Of course you would have that opinion.
That’ right!
BTW the key phrase here is “at the momement”. This is about the same thing he is saying about not raising taxes on anyone making over 250k. It’ll change. Do you have some other examples? Like say on abortion, taxes, states rights, strong military, gun rights, ect…
I believe you mean not raising taxes on anyone making ‘less’ than 250k… you say ‘it’ll change’ but you’re a conservative so ‘Of course you would have that opinion.’
And you don’t get to set the agenda, show me where Obama has done anything remotely liberal on gun rights?
This a typo that caused huge problems. Sorry about that. Should have read: “Wise as to NOT cause him to be distracted from his mission of empowering the federal government even further.”
That makes more sense, yes. I don’t agree but at least it makes some sense… see why I asked you to re-read and repost?
July 13th, 2009 at 6:01 pmPBS will be lost to us until such time as President Obama kicks the conservatives Bush put on the board off.3tx Once Bush stacked the PBS Board with conservatives, it ceased to be a “public” broadcasting station
July 13th, 2009 at 6:38 pmwith no other choice for the people, i.e. the federal government? If we don’t like it too bad? Right?
Wrong.
Look at Germany… I’d be happy with that. So would the average American… they’d be covered too!
July 13th, 2009 at 6:39 pmYou don’t agree that Obama wants to expand the powers of the federal governement?
Considering he’s against the Bush era surveillance powers I’d say he wants to roll back the ‘powers of the federal government’ in several key areas…
July 13th, 2009 at 6:49 pmTracy__5 says:
You don’t agree that Obama wants to expand the powers of the federal governement?
Absolutely not. Bush tried to expand the powers of the presidency with phony legal opinions and claim extraordinary powers under the national security laws and his alleged inherent powers to spy without a court order, hold citizens without recourse to the courts, and so on. Obama is dealing with the presidency as a Constitutional office subject to the Constitution. Any other expansions of government are within the purview of various areas that are conferred on the federal government through the Congress.
July 13th, 2009 at 8:01 pmWas that Faiz or Igor that gave me a (-1)?
July 13th, 2009 at 8:28 pmHere is an idea……have all our lawmakers give up their coverage for 5 years and they can buy individual policies like the rest of us who are not “privileged” to work for the government or a large corporation.
Many in the Senate and Congress are overweight, use tobacco and probably have ” pre-existing” conditions. One of them gets sick, and you will see a bankruptcy filing so fast you won’t believe your eyes……..wake up America…we need jobs, not expensive healthcare !!
July 13th, 2009 at 8:38 pm“…we need jobs, not expensive healthcare”
No, we need jobs, AND INexpensive healthcare.
July 13th, 2009 at 11:52 pmInteresting rub on all of this – in all certainty, questions we will ask in 10 years:
(this assumes universal health care – a foregone conclusion with the democrats controlling the show)
1. Where did all these patients come from?
– keep in mind that not only are we talking about adding many uninsured to the system (not arguing the right/wrong of this) but the aging baby-boomers who turn 65 in a few years. Many of these retirees are healthcare providers – the see-saw is swinging.
2. Cost containment and an ounce of prevention
– will at any point people be required to live healthy? Should I or any of you pay higher taxes because your neighbor refuses to exercise, eat right, or just stop smoking? Can we mandate pre-natal care or regular dental checkups to reduce the costs? Keep in mind we will all be shareholders in the new system
3. A greater realization of the end of life?
– We spend an incredible percentage of health care resources on the last few days of life (20-40% depending on the source and date of the study). Will we know when the end is nigh?
4. What about non-physician practitioners?
– Will we take away the golden goose of the physician and allow cheaper alternatives such as PA’s, ARNP’s, PharmD’s, PsyD’s to intervene?
– all questions we will need to answer. It’s not a question of if change is coming – but when and how.
July 14th, 2009 at 1:33 amMy neighbor is retired Military and WAS totally against any form of a government run health insurance plan. His daughter graduated in May , is unemployed and she had to purchase an individual policy .
It costs $ 220.00/month and she has some Medical issues that are excluded on her policy. I told him, if your daughter goes in the hospital and it is related to one of these riders, her claim will be denied and she will be responsible for all the charges.
Is this a great country ..we can bomb the wrong country and then provide medical care for them, but we can not help our own children…..
My retired military friend MAGICALLY now would like to see a comprehensive government run health plan that his daughter can afford.
It amazes me how people are so generous…as long as they are on top and their needs are met first …
July 14th, 2009 at 7:07 amBill Moyer’s show is one of the best. I’ve learned so much about many subjects watching it. Funny, he’s on Bill O’Reilly’s target list.
July 14th, 2009 at 9:38 amFunny, an insurance industry executive for CIGNA’s corporate communications speaks to Bill Moyers. In his talk he mentions the poisonous influence of for-profit companies (Wall Street) in Washington, D.C.
TP offers a segment of the program, one that leaves out his references to Democratic lobbyist.
I point this out, to the bane of the usual TP enforcers. Thumbs down anyone. I’ll take them as disgust for the Government Industrial Monstrosity, Eisenhower’s MIC on steroids.
July 14th, 2009 at 9:56 amTracy-
I was giving you a compromise… one where ‘We, the People’ can have universal healthcare not fully administered by the federal government… Germany.
It’s a compromise I’m offering, Tracy… hence the words:
“Look at Germany… I’d be happy with that.”
Single Payer makes more sense… but universal coverage is the goal.
You’re ‘gotcha’ is misplaced and a result of your misunderstanding… again.
Some aspects will not be acceptable to those who value liberty and choice. To force people to participate won’t fly in America.
You’re wrong. Again.
We all participate now. It’s called Emergency Rooms. They are paid for out of your so-called ‘repressive’ (wrong, again. again but we’ll leave that for later) taxes… and they cost more than just about any other form of health care. Time to grow up and start acting like an industriaized nation.
July 14th, 2009 at 11:45 amAnd how to pay for the expanded government program? (not even arguing whether it is coming or not, whether it is right or wrong).
July 14th, 2009 at 12:41 pmBut in the compromise you offered and cited as something you you would be happy with, the first things Steve Klingaman mentions is that the German government is not the insurer and that their system is not a single payer system.
Right- that’s why it’s a compromise… hence my saying, ‘it’s a compromise.’ Again, Universal Coverage is the goal and I’m willing to compromise to meet it.
The young and healthy should not be allowed not to carry health insurance because that is foolish, selfish and an unfair burden for the non-foolhardy. Insurance is based upon the principles of ’shard risk’ if the ‘young and healthy’ are allowed to opt-out with no penalty but would still receive Emergency Room care if necessary then we all pay the penalty for their irresponsibility. Nice try.
And you understand taxes not at all… your argument about German costs being a ‘flat tax’ proves this. Or, if you truly believe this is what a ‘flat tax’ is then perhaps we can agree… proportional costs for treatment, proportional costs for speeding tickets, for bread, for medicine, etc. then we agree…
July 14th, 2009 at 12:48 pmis there any difference between people not sharing the cost of insurance and people on public insurance not taking care of themselves (smoking, excessive drinking, sedentary lifestyle etc)?
July 14th, 2009 at 1:08 pmOne in a sense that the rich pay more for the same services in an actually dollar amount.
??? On what world?
The Rich are charged more for the same services? Where?
July 14th, 2009 at 1:13 pmConsidering the “rich” pay more INDIVIDUALLY in dollar amounts and as a percentage they pay more to drive on the same roads and they pay more in actual dollar amount and percentage to maintain them. Correct? If you don’t agree…do elaborate.
In taxes? Agreed… sure. I’m still unsure how this is ‘double regressive’
10% of income can mean the difference between starvation and survival to someone making $10,000.00 a year.
10% of income means something very different to someone making $1,000,000.00 a year.
How much do you need to live, Tracy? On an INDIVIDUAL basis?
July 14th, 2009 at 1:31 pmNo comment about the way you would proportionally tax those goods and services you mentioned?
I wouldn’t… it makes more sense to tax people’s income. Take care of that at that point. You were the one arguing for the proportional costs… If you can figure it out, you let me know.
You called the German system a flat tax… I said, if that’s your flat tax then I can agree to do it that way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_Germany
July 14th, 2009 at 1:38 pmAgain no comment about whether or not you think we should all receive the same salary regardless of what we do for a living? This is the golden question that will explain alot about your philosophy on just about every economic issue.
No.
July 14th, 2009 at 1:58 pmI do not.
I do think that we should all be paid a living wage regardless of what we do for a living.
riddle me this:
1. If someone works two jobs to pay off debt and provide a retirement for herself does that make her rich or hardworking? Should she be penalized with higher taxes for planning ahead?
2. If business can hire someone for $6 an hour, what right does the government have to demand $10 an hour for that person? Where does that cost get passed on to?
July 14th, 2009 at 2:20 pmLiving wage?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_wage
We can have a talk about what the exact expected amount should be, do you agree that this is an attainable goal we should aspire to?
If you think that it’s fair to tax people at a higher percentage rate based on their salary then you must believe that they should pay more for the same services simply because the can.
I’ll let Adam Smith explain, you like him, right?
July 14th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
riddle me this:
1. if someone inherits $10,000,000 and a ranch from their parents who made their money in Cattle Ranching (grazing on public lands) did they ‘earn’ that money? Were they ‘hardworking’ and deserving of the same tax rate as someone who is working two jobs to pay off her debts and barely scraping by?
2. If a business can hire someone for $3.00 hour and charge them for necessities at the ‘company store’ such that the person is always in debt that they are never able to fully pay off no matter how hard they work. Is that reasonable? What cost for the ’savings’ to the consumer?
July 14th, 2009 at 2:31 pmAbsolutely but on an individual basis.
How? How do you reach the goal of a living wage for everyone on an individual basis?
If you think it should be on a collective basis you are embracing a basic philosophy of Karl Marx….”From each according to his ability, to each according to his need”
Absolutely.
that we as a society should all should accept the same standard of living and be a classless society.
Nonsense. We should have a base standard of living… that’s called being civilized. We won’t (or shouldn’t) allow our people to starve (we do currently and it’s a disgrace). And a ‘classless’ society is not a bad ideal, you know. If you want everyone to thrive according to their ability (as I do) then you acknowledge that ‘class’ is an outdated concept.
If Bush didn’t have the grades to get into Yale he should not have been accepted, regardless of his ‘class.’
You are free to believe whatever nonsense you want, Tracy. It won’t win elections and won’t convince me… in this instance Adam Smith is totally right. And you are wrong.
July 14th, 2009 at 3:31 pmSociety in general is not more entitled to that money than the heirs of that estate.
Except that society in general owns those resources they used to collect that money. Right? You didn’t answer the question.
July 14th, 2009 at 3:33 pmWhich means you are for everyone being equal no matter what they do for a living.
No. Which means I’m for “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” which does not mean everyone being ‘forced’ equal no matter what they do for a living… at all. It means everyone gives what they can, and everyone receives what they need. Pretty basic. And common sense- you guys love common sense, right?
And if you read carefully and critically you’ll see I don’t contradict myself at all… how does ‘the same standard of living’ equal the basic standard of living that I’m proposing?
So? Everyone uses public resources to produce goods and services. We pay our taxes to use those resources. That’s our obligation to society, i.e. to pay to use those resources thu taxes, not to give it away to others who had no hand in producing that wealth.
Wow. So you understand part of the concept of taxes! But they are more than a use fee… you’ve also admitted it would be impossible to collect a ‘fair and equitable’ use-fee anyway. They pay for intangibles like the military and public health that benefit all but are hard to charge to any INDIVIDUAL directly, get it?
Who am I kidding…
And re: College Admissions. Get rid of all legacies and all inheritances and I guarantee you will hear no one complaining about affirmative action also being dismissed.
July 14th, 2009 at 5:06 pmTracy_5
Sounds like you are for a single payer system, only you do not want the government to run it. Are you using the excuse that a government plan would put the private insurance carriers out of business…or I don’t want the government competing with the private sector ??
This discussion is about private health insurance companies…so explain to us your answer to funding healthcare ??
July 14th, 2009 at 5:11 pmI am glad you think that confiscating, i.e. taxing an estate in order to do nothing but redistribute the money to an undeserving society is unfair.
Darn that undeserving society… you are a funny guy, Tracy.
Are you denying what economic historians think that this phrase means: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” means?…which is that regardless of how much or what someone produces they should all consume the same amount.
Which one says that? Who are you reading?
July 14th, 2009 at 5:58 pmevery person should contribute to society to the best of his ability and consume from society in proportion to his needs, regardless of how much he has contributed
Shocking!
July 14th, 2009 at 6:11 pmWhere does it say that all mens needs will be the same?
Where?
No Free Ride?
So you are against inheritance?!?
In addition there are a number of streams of thought which hold to a similar principle in a limited form. For example, Catholic social teaching holds that everyone has the right to a basic standard of living. Thus, for example, the able-bodied are bound to help the less fortunate.[citation needed] The idea of the welfare state is based on a similar idea, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights asserts a similar “right to social security.”[7]
Darn those Catholic Commies! Wait- are you one of them? Don’t you believe in a ‘basic’ standard of living????
July 14th, 2009 at 6:14 pmIt’s rather contradictive to the whole idea of people being paid varying wages based on their contribution to society.
No. We can pay people varying wages. We are not talking about taxing people so that all the incomes are the same, no matter how often you try to frame it that way. People will contribute more to society if they can afford to, and will take more from society if they need to. Hence the phrase: ‘from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.’
Is there anything in there about everybody is paid the same? No? Shocking?!?
Umm…that’s rather implied don’t you think?
Umm… no. People will need more or less to attain a ‘basic standard of living’ based on their ability. Hence the phrase: ‘from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.’
No way! I think it should be up to the individual who produced the wealth to decide who gets the money in the estate considering society already received their cut when taxes were collected when the wealth was initially produced
Individuals do not produce wealth in a vacuum. As you have already admitted they utilize societies resources to do so. As I have already stated, if you want to charge a real ‘use-fee’ instead of taxes, go ahead and do it. First, tell me how and then prepare to be shocked by how much society contributes to your own success. To everyones.
July 14th, 2009 at 6:30 pm# 187
Good, then when you turn 65, turn down your Medicare and go it on your own..
Medicare is a single payer system .
BTW…you will not pay a little bit more, you will be bankrupt.
In Greed We Trust
July 14th, 2009 at 6:56 pm#187
Medicare is HORRIBLE and is wrought with corruption because it is too big.
July 14th, 2009 at 8:58 pm# 196
Take a survey…see how many people on Medicare are willing to give it up .
July 14th, 2009 at 9:02 pmMJT – that’s a really good point. Is it because there is nothing else or is it because Medicare is so great?
This will probably open the debate as to why there is nothing else heh heh
July 14th, 2009 at 9:14 pmOh and read my #154 post – curious what you think heh
July 14th, 2009 at 9:17 pmCanare- why is EVERY SINGLE OTHER INDUSTRIALIZED NATION able to provide universal coverage and still spend LESS than the United States on it?
curious… heh.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care
July 14th, 2009 at 9:23 pmFrom the above link…
For example, in France, the government spends $569 less per person on health care than in the United States.
and…
Administrative costs in the U.S. health care system are substantially higher than those in other countries and than in the public sector in the US: one estimate put the total administrative costs at 24 percent of U.S. health care spending
Where will we find the money?
Oh, there it is.
July 14th, 2009 at 9:27 pmSorry Bela – as a rule I don’t take wikipedia as a serious source, so I take your numbers with a grain of salt.
So answer this then – why do people from other countries come here for serious medical care?
our problem here is that everyone wants the best and they want it now.
I agree that some sort of coverage is needed, it actually already exists in a very primitive form. But my concerns are not with the existence of a program, but the funding.
Also,
1. The US is lawsuit happy
2. We have made it nearly illegal to die
3. Our regulations strangle us
…
and this one is my favourite – this one makes people think hard…
we do not get paid to do the right thing in medicine.
July 14th, 2009 at 10:10 pm“Yeah so many unwittingly think that everyone deserves a free ride.”
Tracy, name one person who thinks that. Just one.
July 14th, 2009 at 10:18 pm2. We have made it nearly illegal to die
Okay, I’ll bite: What exactly do you mean by this one?
July 14th, 2009 at 10:22 pmHeh jane – by that I am giving insight to our gross ineptitude to see death when its coming.
90 year-old man in intensive care on 18 meds keeping his heart and lungs going dies and someone sues because there was this 19th drug that would have made him live 2 days longer.
– yah it’s a bit extreme, but that is the mentality.
We spend so much money practicing defense medicine that we cannot concentrate on doing the right thing, not to mention we run out of resources when there is patient we should go all out for.
July 14th, 2009 at 10:31 pm“90 year-old man in intensive care on 18 meds keeping his heart and lungs going dies and someone sues because there was this 19th drug that would have made him live 2 days longer.
- yah it’s a bit extreme, but that is the mentality.”
More than a bit extreme, Canare. Sounds more like an urban legend to me.
Sorry, off to watch The Daily Show. Have a good night.
July 14th, 2009 at 11:04 pmno, it’s not legend – it was an actual patient.
A rarity for sure, but we need to have a greater understanding of the end of life.
Have a great night !
July 14th, 2009 at 11:11 pm“…we need to have a greater understanding of the end of life.”
Oh, I have a pretty good understanding of the end of life. And yes, there’s vast room for improvement in care. IMHO, seniors in general are treated pretty shabbily by us as a nation, and the majority of ‘end-of-life’ care doesn’t really deserve the word “care.”
I do give much credit to the Visiting Nurses/Hospice Care people, the employees, nurses and pretty much everyone that my family dealt with were good to exceptional. More funding for their type of work would be a good thing, as far as I’m concerned.
I could go on (and on and on), but it’s late–goodnight.
July 15th, 2009 at 12:21 amCanare
July 15th, 2009 at 6:56 am# 198
It is because there is nothing else. The current “Employer Based” system has created the nightmare. Think about it…why do Doctors, labs, hospitals overbill everything…it is because they are trying to get ” Usual & Customary” charges higher in their zip codes. I know this, my sister is married to a physican ( internal medicine)..she runs his office. They know your insurance will only pay 50.00 for the office visit, but they bill 150.00 to try and get the “U&C” fees higher.
Why do hospital’s bill 5.00 for an aspirin. It is all a scam….a single payer system levels the “GREED” out of the system. Please answer these questions for me:
If the small employers create 70% of the private sector jobs, why do they pay the most for group health insurance ?
Why do employers provide health insurance in the first place?
If an employee is injured or becomes ill “on the job” does his health insurance cover that ?
If Rush Limbaugh lost his job, could He qualify for an individual policy with no riders or exclusions ????
If Michael Dell worked for a large corporation like IBM and He had some medical conditions like diabetes or a heart condition…do you really think He would have quit his job to start Dell computers ???
The US does NOT have a healthcare system…the US has a Healthcare Market..it is profit driven and will wipe you out if you get sick or injured and fail to have the “right coverage” because of where you WORK !!
Canare
# 154
Your points are well taken, but the current system does not address prevention…Most private insurance plans do not cover preventative care, it is very limited.
Golden Goose…why are healthcare providers so elite. I spent 7 years in college ( BBA, MBA) and I went to paramedic school..Medicine is no harder to learn than economics…you simply learn the vocabulary and follow the algorithm’s..
Why does a Radiologist make $ 2,000,000 a year and a family Doctor struggle to make 75,000….
Question:
Who is the 2nd largest lobbyist group in Washington ?
July 15th, 2009 at 7:13 amI reject the view by many on the left who demonize Aetna, Cigna and other private insurers. These corporations are rational actors who are doing exactly what they should be doing — maximizing profit. Unfortunately, the sick, the poor and the elderly are not profitable groups to insure at affordable rates. As a result, I share Potter’s conclusion that a public option is appropriate.
http://axisofreason.com/2009/07/15/former-private-health-insurance-executive-concludes-appropriate-role-for-government-in-health-insurance/
July 15th, 2009 at 10:32 amMJT –
“Why do hospital’s bill 5.00 for an aspirin. It is all a scam….a single payer system levels the “GREED” out of the system.”
— actually hospitals take all comers, insured or not – so if you pay $5 for an aspirin, you pay for the 9 people who didn’t
” Please answer these questions for me:
If the small employers create 70% of the private sector jobs, why do they pay the most for group health insurance ?”
— easy answer to that, risk-dilution. If they are in a group-buying plan they get discounted because the risks are spread out.
“Why do employers provide health insurance in the first place?
If an employee is injured or becomes ill “on the job” does his health insurance cover that?”
— Well, for starters it’s a way to get employees. Also, healthy employees are more productive. On the job illness or injury is covered by workman’s compensation insurance.
“If Rush Limbaugh lost his job, could He qualify for an individual policy with no riders or exclusions ????”
— I’m sure he could, but his policy premium would be sky-high (that’s all relative of course, since he is filthy rich)
“If Michael Dell worked for a large corporation like IBM and He had some medical conditions like diabetes or a heart condition…do you really think He would have quit his job to start Dell computers ???”
— well that’s quite an involved hypothetical, but the reward-risk panned out nicely for him. on a side note, diabetes is mostly preventable (unless it’s the much more rare type 1)
“The US does NOT have a healthcare system…the US has a Healthcare Market..it is profit driven and will wipe you out if you get sick or injured and fail to have the “right coverage” because of where you WORK !!”
— I agree with this. It is a double-edged sword though. The market is good when people when the most advanced coverage. The market is evil when it fails someone.
On that note, what is the purpose of a corporation? If you make any industry “non-for-profit” where is the incentive? The goodness of their hearts?
The rest of the world loves that the US is a free market – they reap the benefits of our advances, maybe delayed a few years, but they do. Their elite come here for serious stuff.
July 16th, 2009 at 1:00 amMJT (round 2 lol)
“Your points are well taken, but the current system does not address prevention…Most private insurance plans do not cover preventative care, it is very limited.”
— Insurance plans are for the unexpected. Does your auto insurance cover oil changes?
“I spent 7 years in college ( BBA, MBA) and I went to paramedic school..Medicine is no harder to learn than economics…you simply learn the vocabulary and follow the algorithm’s..”
— sorry, this is a bit offensive. if it were as easy as you say there would be no need for a physician. pretty sure medicine evolves much faster than economics, and is certainly more gray.
“Why does a Radiologist make $ 2,000,000 a year and a family Doctor struggle to make 75,000….”
— I know several radiologists and they don’t make that between the 4 of them. I do know that radiologists pay out the wazoo in malpractice insurance. If a family MD is only making $75k they are missing something or they are limiting their practice for some reason.
“Question: Who is the 2nd largest lobbyist group in Washington ?”
For the past 11 years:
1. Pharmaceuticals/Health Products
2. Insurance
3. Electric Utilities
4. Computers/Internet
5. Business Associations
6. Oil & Gas
7. Education
8. Real Estate
9. Misc Manufacturing & Distributing
10. Hospitals/Nursing Homes
11. Air Transport
12. Health Professionals
13. Securities & Investment
14. Civil Servants/Public Officials
15. TV/Movies/Music
For 2009 Oil & gas is #2
July 16th, 2009 at 1:12 amJane said:
IMHO, seniors in general are treated pretty shabbily by us as a nation, and the majority of ‘end-of-life’ care doesn’t really deserve the word “care.”
————————————————————
two thumbs up =)
July 16th, 2009 at 1:14 amCanare
Hospitals take all comers on an emergency basis…private hospitals throw you out and ship you off to the county hospital with no $$$
Risk-dilution: all the more reason for single payer..One small little consideration you are over-looking…Large corporations ” self insure” a large portion of the risk, reducing their insurance premium from outside insurers. A major advantage over small to medium size companies.
Group health insurance attracts better talent…another reason to ” Level the playing field “..You are promoting socialism…( New grads…work for the goverment or the big monopoly…don’t start your own business, your health insurance premium will be SKY HIGH ( IF you can get a clean policy with no exclusions)
Rush Limbaugh is FAT, SMOKES and has a drug history…I am sure HE will NOT get a clean policy without riders, waivers and will have a higher premium. What insurance company would take him ???
Michael Dell scenario…you did not answer that…The point I was trying to make is that He never would have left his employer…This country was built on creative , risk-taking individuals and our current ” Employer-Based” health insurance system is killing that concept.
non-for-profit: there is a place in our society for these organization…I am not against the healthcare system on a for profit basis…just level the playing field and allow all the players to share EQUALLY in the cost. A single-payer system will provide the “risk-dilution” for everyone.
If you are a healthcare provider and you do not like the reimbursements you receive from this plan, they DO NOT accept it. Medicare is a great example, some physican’s do not accept it…FINE …customer can pay or go somewhere else..It is called CHOICE
Prevention..I agree, except we both know that preventative benefits would greatly reduce the # of chronic cases…
Never said Medical school/training was not hard, and it needs to attract talent, but so do other fields such as Law, Engineering, IT….and all of these fields have “gray areas”
The differnce is,these other fields do not have “manna from heaven”…a third source(insurance) to draw from…like healthcare does.
Malpractice insurance: My products liability insurance is higher than my brother-in-law’s (MD) malpractice insurance.
Lobbyist groups: Not sure where you got that list….Chamber of Commerce is # 1 , American Medical Association is # 2 and the American Hospital Association is among the top 10, along with pharma, medical device mfgs….see a trend here ??
July 16th, 2009 at 7:25 amgot it from opensecrets.org
will check back later – will respond properly to your post – have a great day
July 16th, 2009 at 10:00 amCanare
opensecrets.org….checkout Lobbying , then top spenders
Thanks…you have a great day too
July 16th, 2009 at 11:34 amOh by group I understood industry – i guess you can slice it any way you look at it – it’s a ton of money on all sides of the issue
July 16th, 2009 at 4:12 pmI helped subtitle the movie “Sicko” into Hebrew. Please join the Facebook group:
Americans Abroad in Exile for affordable medical coverage
DEDICATED TO THE UNEMPLOYED AMERICANS AND THOSE WHO CANNOT AFFORD PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE AND THOSE OF US WHO HAVE “VOTED WITH OUR FEET” AND LIVE IN OTHER COUNTRIES WITH UNIVERSAL COVERAGE.
Let us see how many American FB members will admit to living abroad because of no socialized medicine in the US? Don’t we all agree that it is a travesty that it is still customary in the US for employers to bear the brunt of health care costs, and if one is self-employed or not employed, that one should have access to decent care and not have to worry about financial ruin?
This group is also open to our friends, loved ones, and anyone else who would like to see us come back to the US and who would like this burden lifted from their shoulders as well.
July 20th, 2009 at 4:12 am