Flashback: Republicans Opposed Medicare In 1960s By Warning Of Rationing, ‘Socialized Medicine’
Flashback: Republicans Opposed Medicare In 1960s By Warning Of Rationing, ‘Socialized Medicine’
Tomorrow is the the 44th anniversary of Medicare, an essential government-sponsored health care program that provides coverage to virtually all of the nation’s elderly and a large share of people with disabilities.
At the time of its creation, conservatives strongly opposed Medicare, warning that a government-run program would lead to socialism in America:
Ronald Reagan: “[I]f you don’t [stop Medicare] and I don’t do it, one of these days you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it once was like in America when men were free.” [1961]
George H.W. Bush: Described Medicare in 1964 as “socialized medicine.” [1964]
Barry Goldwater: “Having given our pensioners their medical care in kind, why not food baskets, why not public housing accommodations, why not vacation resorts, why not a ration of cigarettes for those who smoke and of beer for those who drink.” [1964]
Bob Dole: In 1996, while running for the Presidency, Dole openly bragged that he was one of 12 House members who voted against creating Medicare in 1965. “I was there, fighting the fight, voting against Medicare . . . because we knew it wouldn’t work in 1965.” [1965]
Republicans are of course recycling the same fear-mongering rhetoric today in an effort to defeat the public option. As Igor Volsky notes on the Wonk Room, conservatives have attempted in the decades since Medicare’s creation to kill it and force it to “wither on the vine.” While Medicare is not without its problems, it has dramatically improved access to health care, allowed seniors to live longer and healthier lives, helped greatly reduce poverty amongst the elderly, contributed to the desegregation of southern hospitals, and has become one of the most popular government programs.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Medicare was a great help to my parents and my aunts and uncles, all of whom lived well into their 90’s.
Thank God that the repiggies weren’t strong enough to screw it up back in the day. I really am so down on this country right now.
July 29th, 2009 at 1:22 pmEverything that’s old is new again to the GNOP:
“We’ve got no ideas of our own so let’s go back to the archives!”
And they say they’re not big on recycling!
PEACE
July 29th, 2009 at 1:24 pm“I don’t want government run health care. I don’t want socialized medicine. But don’t touch my Medicare!”
Suck it, Repubs. People are more important than money.
July 29th, 2009 at 1:26 pmAaaaah, yes – the smell of compassionate conservatism in the morning.
Reminds me of a cow pasture.
July 29th, 2009 at 1:26 pmThe more things change, the more they remain the same.
July 29th, 2009 at 1:26 pmHow can the people form and sensible opinion when they are being told total opposites of so-called facts.
Insurance companies and others are paying 20-some million per day to lobby against any health care reform, anyone know who is collecting those dollars? Anyone even asking?
July 29th, 2009 at 1:27 pmWOW! Deja Vu all over again!
July 29th, 2009 at 1:29 pmThe obstructionist Repubs are fear-mongering that health care reform will “kill people,” but they would shoot down Medicare in a heartbeat — which would kill people — and thousands and thousands of people are dying every year NOW because of a lack of access to health care.
They don’t care about the people, they care about the money.
July 29th, 2009 at 1:30 pm“Ronald Reagan: “[I]f you don’t [stop Medicare] and I don’t do it, one of these days you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it once was like in America when men were free.” [1961]”
Tell me again Ronnie.
July 29th, 2009 at 1:31 pmEveryone join hands and gaze into the crystal ball….
Thanks for the reminder TP. I get to spend this weekend with my crazy inlaws. Can’t wait to hear the ones on Medicare complain about how Obama is trying to force socialized medicine on everybody. That could top my wife’s cousin who is on unemployment yet still complains about welfare mothers. Good times.
July 29th, 2009 at 1:32 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
We are fighting the same battle forty years later. The only difference is the Repugnicans are better financed and have the right wing nut commentators like Limpball, Insannity, and Punk Beck getting free reign on the airways.
Some Americans, I’m afraid, are like sheep and can be easily led astray.
July 29th, 2009 at 1:35 pmThey can’t even think of new ways to oppose progress. If their fears were correct, we would already be a socialized nation. That didn’t work out, so why should we think it would now?
July 29th, 2009 at 1:36 pmFlashback: Republicans Opposed Medicare In 1960s By Warning Of Rationing, ‘Socialized Medicine’
– - As Chris Matthews noted weeks ago when discussing social programs and matters pertaining to class the US has adopted and the GOP has steadfastly opposed, “When is the GOP going to get ahead on some of these social issues?”
July 29th, 2009 at 1:37 pmLOL The repugs are recycling stuff from the 60`s.
July 29th, 2009 at 1:40 pmshaking my head and they can not even get that correct for them lets try a scare tactic that didn’t work in the 60`s on a program thats been so successful and has helped millions enjoy some of those sunset days of freedom.
Now seniors have more information and they vote. The GOP look for like seniors themselves and we’ll see who it works telling other seniors they don’t need medical care. There are some groups you don’t mess with and seniors are one of those groups. Bob Dole uses his benefits from Medicaid and others like Grandpa McCain uses his for the memory lost problem. There are people you can take on with a fight but the GOP will lose when it comes to seniors.
July 29th, 2009 at 1:41 pmWhy don’t the Republicans put forth a plan to privatize Medicare? Look how well their plan to privatize Social Security worked for them.
July 29th, 2009 at 1:45 pmRonald Reagan: “[I]f you don’t [stop Medicare] and I don’t do it, one of these days you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it once was like in America when men were free to die without health care.”
July 29th, 2009 at 1:47 pmSoon after Republicans walked out of health care negotiations (then went on to take the House using the slogan that Clinton was a do nothing President) I watched a TV reporter ask two Republicans whether they worried about being punished at the polls. No… was their response.
That single conversation convinced me that I needed to pick a side.
As I’ve watched the national debate since then I’ve come to realize that today’s media doesn’t call balls and strikes any more. When I was younger you could watch two different coverages of the same event and see two completely different interpretations / frames. But… both sides honored the facts. Not any more. Obfuscation and misrepresentation is just another point of view to today’s media. How can we expect to dig ourselves out of the hole we’re in when we aren’t all dealing with the facts!
My Congressman was caught dodging the is-Obama-a-citizen question this past week. There’s no way any politician could have gotten away with such obfuscation when I was growing up.
Suggestion… How about writing a pre-health care reform bill in the House. Address the needs (as facts) in that bill AND call out every health care bill related rumor that’s floating on the internet.
Perhaps then we could raise the level of debate in this country.
July 29th, 2009 at 1:47 pmAs the President pointed out, a lot of seniors are “opposed” to the idea of a public option, opposed to single-payer healthcare, and sure as HELL opposed to cutting Medicare.
Oh…angry, retired conservatives. You never cease to baffle.
July 29th, 2009 at 1:52 pmOld people have us, the younger generation, by the balls. They scream, “Don’t touch my Medicare!” But are willing to let younger folks slip through the cracks. Our generation is the most taxed, have less job security, and work longer hours AND both Mom and Dad have to work. Social Sercurity will be long gone when I’m old. but if you ask old folks to compromise? These reply is , “Screw You!”
July 29th, 2009 at 1:52 pmHere’s an interesting US history thought. The Slave Master always kept his strong slaves healthy so they would work hard and made the Master money. As we see such success in that policy we have even the White House build by strong slaves. Now the educated GOP know it better to keep those strong to make wealth for the rich then to let those workers get weak and die because of lack of health care. The racist idiots like Boehner, Cantor, Limbaugh, Graham, Bachmann and others are to stupid to understand how things work with a Master and a Slave. But some GOP Leaders know it well as even Reagan was stopped from not caring for the seniors. Today in this recession we see more seniors working pass retirement age and don’t worry the evil people in the Medical Company will fine a way to kill off sick Americans.
July 29th, 2009 at 2:00 pmIs it possible to hate republicans even more? I just don’t understand how these people sleep at night. Unless it’s just the simple fact that they don’t care about the well-being of our people. Look at the obscene amount of money being spent on lobbyists and then given to the politicians who are trying to stop the right thing from being done. This money could have been used to pay for treatments that were denied to people who faithfully paid premiums to the insurance companies. They try to wrap it, shape it, twist it or spin it every way possible, but I call it sick!
If the democrats allow health care reform to be defeated then that should be an indicator to us all that they, too, only care about the status quo. And not America or its people.
July 29th, 2009 at 2:00 pmHey all, This is way O/T but when I saw it I knew I wanted to share it. I was behind a beatup pickup truck with a bumper sticker that read.
July 29th, 2009 at 2:01 pm“Take your kids out hunting so you dont have to hunt for them.Tednugent.com”
We know hes a wingnut. Why not take your kids to the library or to the park. They would rather teach their children about guns and killing at an early age. Nothing like steering them in the right direction at an early age.
Hmm, socialized medicine seems to agree with Senators and Representatives as long as it only covers them, their spouses, their family and their staff members. No problemo…
A robust public option can easily be paid for by ending our stupid imperial occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq. President Obama can do this with the stroke of a pen…
July 29th, 2009 at 2:01 pmThom Hartmann pointed out this website that debunks the rightwing fear-mongering:
Please Cut the Crap!
July 29th, 2009 at 2:01 pmdid goldwater, raygun, bush or dole say thanks but no thanks when it came time to collect their medicare benefits? au contraire, the american people just paid for a double hip replacement for 90 year old bush senior.
July 29th, 2009 at 2:03 pm.
But the question remains…
… Will Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) give up his socialized health care?
WHY WON’T ANYONE ASK HIM?
.
July 29th, 2009 at 2:04 pmRonald Reagan is being flayed in Hell, by the way–mostly for the death squad thing.
July 29th, 2009 at 2:04 pmWhen they have to pay pundits millions of dollars a year thats all I need to know to ignore whatever it is they say.
July 29th, 2009 at 2:05 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
the fact that medicare is celebrating it’s 44th anniversary is yet more proof that cancervatives are wrong about everything, all the time.
July 29th, 2009 at 2:09 pmI would like for you to think about what you are saying, here. $459 billion for 44.6 million people comes out to $10,291.48 per year, and they are all over the age of 65 or disabled, thus experiencing higher healthcare costs than younger, healthier people, and covers many prescriptions (if you’ve ever been inside an older person’s bathroom, you’d think you’d been teleported to a pharmacy).
Premiums for myself and my husband to both have medical insurance are right at $700 a month, coming out to $4,200 a year each, and we are never ill, have no pre-existing conditions, I have NEVER been hospitalized and he was in for 1 night two years ago. That is for routine annual visits (and doesn’t include yearly exams from people like the eye doctor or the dentist, that is a family doctor and a gyn only) and a monthly prescription that keeps our family at 2 people instead of three. If we were to ever have a situation that required we actually use the insurance we pay for, we have to come up with $4,000 up front before anything is covered, assuming they don’t just cancel us if it’s something bad so they don’t have to pay.
We aren’t uncommon. In fact, we’re pretty much the average tale.
So go ahead and tell us how the deal we have now is SOOO much better and more cost efficient. I wait with baited breath to read this sure-to-be masterful stroke of logic and rational thought.
July 29th, 2009 at 2:10 pmI realized ever since the Repugs started scaring the bee-jeebies out of the seniors of this country, the reform is going down the tubes. Now Obama had to reassure the elder people of this country we aren’t trying to kill them? How sad can this debate get? Are American’s this stupid? Do they honestly believe Obama wants to kill off old people? The Repugs sank to a whole new low. But why are we suprised? After all Glenn Beck called the Pres a racist.
July 29th, 2009 at 2:11 pmThe Republican Party continues to be a party with no new ideas. Even the way they say no hasn’t changed. They have been taking money from the insurance industry for decades, in violation of the law. It is treason to take money from companies who attempt to influence the vote.
They are traitors to the people of the United States and they deserve to be hanged. We must remove them all from political power and never allow Republicans to ever regain political power.
July 29th, 2009 at 2:13 pmIt’s a catch 22. What are any of you going to do if your Congressman or Senator votes for this thing if it does not have a public option? What are you going to do if Obama signs it into law? Not vote next time or vote for 3rd party??? The only one real option here is to protest protest protest. Call and write your reps regularly, join action groups and get out there, write your newspaper, and be creative in finding ways to make a difference cause if you don’t then you have no right to complain.
July 29th, 2009 at 2:14 pmTruth Troll would nail Jesus to a cross for a hundred bucks.
July 29th, 2009 at 2:16 pmDoes Bill Maher deserve at least a hat tip for originally making this point, as far as I know, on his show?
July 29th, 2009 at 2:17 pm***
copying a trolls comments
into your own comment is a
good way to get voted down.
:)
July 29th, 2009 at 2:18 pmTruthTroll says:
I would like to know more about the state of health care in the 1950’s before Medicare was passed. Weren’t health care costs lower for the average prol?
I think Medicare costs a lot more than they thought it would.
And we have a health care crisis to boot.
Is Medicare a success story at 44.6 million people for $459 billion per year? Now we need more, more, more.
Always more with nothing to show for it.
Yes, Medicare costs a lot more than they thought it would. But you, like all other neocon idiots, aren’t taking into account all of the medical advances since the 1950’s. For example, cancer treatments were largely non-existent and when diagnosed and were considered a death sentence. Today, very few cancers are automatic death sentences.
Are these treatments expensive? Yes, but to listen to the “compassionate conservitaves”, we should just let people die of treatable illnesses.
July 29th, 2009 at 2:19 pmWhy don’t we stop spending the money on wars and toppling governments around the world and spend the money on our own people first?
I forgot to mention – I’m 25, and my husband’s 28. There is no sense in charging people so young and in such good health such outrageous prices for insurance to guard against an emergency.
It’s not just nonsensical, it’s sick and twisted.
July 29th, 2009 at 2:20 pmTruthTroll says:
Always more with nothing to show for it.
July 29th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
Well, the population would be much lower without all those old people. That’s something.
July 29th, 2009 at 2:20 pmapparently truth troll wants to tell the millions of seniors in this country who can’t afford private insurance and rely on medicare “tough titty” when it comes to their health.
i say you clowns should run on that platform on the next election cycle. you’ve already tossed away the hispanic vote, might as well throw the elderly under the wheels of the bus while you’re at it.
July 29th, 2009 at 2:20 pmXentrix says:
It’s a catch 22. What are any of you going to do if your Congressman or Senator votes for this thing if it does not have a public option? What are you going to do if Obama signs it into law? Not vote next time or vote for 3rd party???
Yes, I am planning to start voting for a third party if the Democrats won’t represent me. If more people would do that, we might get better representation than we do from our current crop of corporate wh0res.
July 29th, 2009 at 2:21 pm#34 P.D. says…
I agree…how can Congressmen openly state that the health bill is designed to do away with old people and not be objected to by Democratic Reps or the main stream media?
I didn’t freedom of speech meant that you can lie out your butt…
July 29th, 2009 at 2:22 pmAh.
I see that Truth Troll would rather just vote people down and not respond to the legitmate calls for it to explain itself and its position than to attempt any type of rational conversation.
Typical.
July 29th, 2009 at 2:24 pmZooey says:
TruthTroll says:
Always more with nothing to show for it.
July 29th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
Well, the population would be much lower without all those old people. That’s something.
And the blindingly obvious: health costs have gone up tremendously for everyone. Why should Medicare be any different.
Of course, if Big Pharm hadn’t prevented its inclusion, we would have mandated lower pharmaceutical prices and Medicare’s costs would be much lower.
July 29th, 2009 at 2:26 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
“Ronald Reagan: “[I]f you don’t [stop Medicare] and I don’t do it, one of these days you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it once was like in America when men were free.” [1961]“
REAGAN YOU PIECE OF SHITE!!!!!
I’LL TELL YOU HOW FREE I AM;
I DON’T HAVE ANY MEDICAL BILLS
I DON’T HAVE ANY CO-PAYS
I DON’T HAVE ANY PREMIEUMS TO PAY EACH MONTH
I CAN NEVER GO BANKRUPT BECAUSE OF MEDICAL BILLS THAT I DON’T GET.
BECAUSE I DON’T HAVE THESE PROBLEMS….I AM FREE TO SPEND MONEY ON TRAVEL, BUY GUNS, HAVE A BETTER HOUSE, 50INCH TV , DRIVE A MERCEDES , SAVE FOR MY KIDS EDUCATION , RETIREMENT ETC.AND I’M NOT RICH ….JUST MIDDLE CLASS. YES THATS MIDDLE CLASS IN CANADA BECUASE WE DON’T GET SCREWED BY HAVING TO GIVE OUR WEALTH TO A COMPANY (INSURANCE).
YOU SEE “I’M CANADIAN” AND I AM FREE AND WE AS A NATION ARE FREE. FREE TO LIVE IN PEACE , FREE TO LIVE WITHOUT WORRIES ABOUT HEALTH BILLS. SO DON’T TELL ME ABOUT TELLING MY CHILDREN ABOUT “ONCE WHEN WE WERE FREE” . FUC* YOU!!!RONNIE.
MAY YOU ROUGHT IN HELL YOU PIG RONNIE!!!!
July 29th, 2009 at 2:28 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
Voting 3rd party is not a good option unless it’s for someone who can win like Bernie Sanders, otherwise you are throwing your vote away. Better to try and write, call, and meet your rep and put pressure on them directly. The more people you are with the better.
July 29th, 2009 at 2:30 pm185 Georgies a month for something your afraid to use when you need it?
Sounds like your worried about getting medical care when you need it because they will raise your premiums.
July 29th, 2009 at 2:31 pmIn 1965 many employers offered health insurance to their retirees along with the pension plans. Since that time, a significant number of employers have eliminated pension plans for for 401k’s and no health insurance. Cobra and individual health insurance policies are exorbitantly high because the people who need these are older retirees with more claims. This leaves the majority of the population to the insurance companies who have written policies that exclude all sorts of conditions, huge copays and no coverage on certain procedures. Health care reform is not worth a damn if these high premiums, huge copays and lack of coverage is allowed to continue. This is what we are going to get out of the Senate bill with coops instead of the public option. I am angry that a group of Dems hold reform hostage for their own political benefit. I have emailed my senators, Durbin and Burris, to push changes in this senate bill.
July 29th, 2009 at 2:32 pmtruth troll,
a simple question for you:
if “socialized medicine” is such a bad thing, why hasn’t a single nation which has it (britain, france, swenden) gotten rid of it?
July 29th, 2009 at 2:36 pmreminds me of an abbatoir, all shit and fear and blood…
It’s now or never, sweetie. Just like with social security, which is healthy for another 40 years, and would be healthy in perpetuity if the cap were taken off the income limits. I hope you get so sick you have to sell your phucking children to pay for the bill, you vile feckless, useless waste of cum, protoplasm and bandwidth,…
July 29th, 2009 at 2:37 pmMax Anax junius -1 says:
But the question remains…
… Will Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) give up his socialized health care?
WHY WON’T ANYONE ASK HIM?
__________________________________________________________
Mike Pence needs to be campaigned out of office as soon as possible, who do we have in Indiana to run against him and win?
July 29th, 2009 at 2:37 pmTruthTroll says:
By the way. Love your handle. I’m a big Salinger fan.
July 29th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
That’s all you’ve got? No system is perfect, and no one is saying so. I’m glad you can be so confident and condescending regarding the health care issues of others, and I hope nothing truly catastrophic every happens to you, because that attitude will certainly disappear in a hurry.
Thanks for the compliment on my name, but it has nothing to do with Salinger. I am a Zookeeper.
July 29th, 2009 at 2:37 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
Every caring MSM commentator or show host, should include this (or a form of this) into EVERY question they ask: “How would you structure a National health care program to resemble/copy the program that Congress has?” Every interview, every time of Dems and Repulsives alike!
July 29th, 2009 at 2:38 pmTruthTroll says:
Smidget:
I would suggest shopping around for a better plan. It sounds like a high deductible plan would make more sense, since you are healthy.
I pay $185 per month for a $5000 deductible and two dental visits per year. If I have to go to the emergency room, as I did last year, I simply work out a payment plan with the hospital and give them $50 a month. Actually, even with high deductible plans, a portion of an emergency room visit can be covered.
Better keep your fingers crossed. At 21, my son had a bicycle-auto accident and had to spend two nights in the hospital. No surgery involved. Total bill, roughly $5,000. An ambulance ride is $800.
Try paying that off at $50/month.
Me: torn miniscus in my right knee. Total bill, roughly $8,000.
You can have an accident or injury at any age. “Healthy” has little to do with it.
July 29th, 2009 at 2:40 pmTruthTroll says
July 29th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
“I would like to know more about the state of health care in the 1950’s before Medicare was passed. Weren’t health care costs lower for the average prol?”
– Yep, they sure were. Of course, health care wasn’t done for profit in those days, so there weren’t a whole lot of greedheads in the supply chain, as there are now.
“I think Medicare costs a lot more than they thought it would.”
– I think EVERYTHING costs more today than it did back in 1965. But for health care, it’s not just a matter of inflation, it’s also that medical advances have created treatments that are more expensive (they didn’t have CAT scanners back in 1965, for example).
“And we have a health care crisis to boot.”
– We sure do. See my comment about greedheads two paragraphs back.
“Is Medicare a success story at 44.6 million people for $459 billion per year? Now we need more, more, more.”
– I guess you could say it’s a success story when you consider what the alternative would have been. Do you think the elderly could have kept up with escalating insurance costs when our employers are having problems? You wingnuts complain about “forced euthanasia” for the elderly, but don’t make a peep about letting them die for lack of access to health care.
“Always more with nothing to show for it.”
July 29th, 2009 at 2:40 pm– I have two parents on Medicare, and I had four grandparents whose lives were enhanced by Medicare. I wouldn’t call that “nothing” — if it wasn’t for Medicare, my parents would be suffering from a number of maladies they wouldn’t be able to afford to treat, and my grandparents would have died years before they did.
Bozo:
Actually, many countries that have social systems are beginning to privatize. There are also lawsuits in places like Canada
http://www.thestar.com/News/Ontario/article/253664
I think another way to address your concern would be that in many cases people grew up in these systems and don’t know any better. They think it is natural to wait 6 months for an MRI, to have rotting teeth, or to die of a cancer that people are more likely to survive in the United States.
After all, who in the 1970s could have imagined we would all be carrying cell phones. People were perfectly happy with their phone service back then.
July 29th, 2009 at 2:41 pmI leave last year and spend time at another site, come back to see whats going on, and it’s the same old doom and gloom.
I drop into a coma in 1960 and spend 40 some years in a hospital, wake up to see what’s going on and it’s the same old doom and gloom from the Republicans about caring for sick people! And my hospital bills are outrageous!!!
/sarc
July 29th, 2009 at 2:41 pmSmidget:
I’m sorry for your misfortune.
Still, hasn’t your deductible been met for the year?
July 29th, 2009 at 2:42 pmtokin librul says:
July 29th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
Your filthy attack on smidget was totally uncalled for, and completely bizarre.
Voted down.
July 29th, 2009 at 2:43 pmI think another way to address your concern would be that in many cases people grew up in these systems and don’t know any better. They think it is natural to wait 6 months for an MRI, to have rotting teeth, or to die of a cancer that people are more likely to survive in the United States.
If they’re insured, that is, and don’t have apre-existing condition. What is your prescription for those folks? Bootstapping?
July 29th, 2009 at 2:44 pmAwwww, SM2 doesn’t like us because we’re not peppy.
So sad…
July 29th, 2009 at 2:45 pmmissco,
You cite rising costs and a culture of greed in the medical sector since the 1950’s as reasons for supporting Medicare, yet these realities grew along with government involvement.
Hasn’t government involvement had anything to do with these costs due to fraud and inflated billing that goes unnoticed in all the red tape? Also, John Edwards and his ilk weren’t suing the pants off doctors for things they had little control over, driving up malpractice insurance.
July 29th, 2009 at 2:46 pmTruthTroll says:
Hey, Zooey.
How are all those old folks doing over in Britain?
Yeah, nothing like that ever happens here.
NHS is so terrible that it’s been in place since the 1940s and Britain still hasn’t tossed it out. Funny about that. And no other Western European country or Canada has tossed theirs out, either.
Why is that?
A good friend of mine lives and works in England and recently had several exploratory procedures including a colonoscopy. Cost to him: £0
Price a colonoscopy without insurance and get back to us.
July 29th, 2009 at 2:46 pm2 dental visits a year? Damn that sucks but then again. Well then again I have a government sponsored plan…
July 29th, 2009 at 2:47 pmoops i few extra then agains…,
July 29th, 2009 at 2:47 pmAfter all, who in the 1970s could have imagined we would all be carrying cell phones. People were perfectly happy with their phone service back then.
Remember “We don’t care. We’re the phone company.”
I guess not.
July 29th, 2009 at 2:47 pmHas it occured to the Truth Troll that a good portion of those private premiums are going to pay the lavish salaries of special interest/lobbyist groups instead of medical care?
That private premiums are being used to deny others health care instead of lowering his monthly premium/deductible?
July 29th, 2009 at 2:48 pmThey think it is natural to wait 6 months for an MRI, to have rotting teeth, or to die of a cancer that people are more likely to survive in the United States.
I’m not certain that this happens as often as those on the right say it does… at least, I have never seen anything but anecdotal evidence.
I have seen evidence that people are dying of Cancer in the U.S. because their insurance provider has dropped them for a clerical error through the process of rescission… how do you feel about that?
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jun/17/business/fi-rescind17
July 29th, 2009 at 2:48 pmI had a torn meniscus, and my insurance company had me hobbling around on crutches for three months before they ok’d the surgery.
July 29th, 2009 at 2:49 pmbelaccifer lacca says:
I’m not certain that this happens as often as those on the right say it does… at least, I have never seen anything but anecdotal evidence.
July 29th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
The troll apparently doesn’t mind that there are Americans dying because we can’t even get on a waiting list.
July 29th, 2009 at 2:51 pmHasn’t government involvement had anything to do with these costs due to fraud and inflated billing that goes unnoticed in all the red tape?
Which political party doesn’t care for regulation? One guess.
July 29th, 2009 at 2:51 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
truth troll,
from the link you provided
“Unable to get surgery fast, she returned to Arizona and had the mass removed on Aug. 1, 2005. Her vision was restored in 10 days. The Holmes family is now in debt $95,000 because of medical costs.”
a) holmes wasn’t denied health care, she decided she couldn’t get it quick enough. if you noticed, she was diagnosed in may and was scheduled for a specialist in july. not all that uncommon in this country. do you think you just call up a specialist in this country and they take you in the next day?
b) they are now 95 grand in debt. welcome to the american healthcare system.
July 29th, 2009 at 2:51 pmRepublicans are using “statistics” from a company owned by the insurane industry as the basis for their false claims about health care. Frank Luntz provides talking points and Lewin Group think tank provides skewed data.
I Received this today from the SEIU:
…Republicans in Congress are actually playing along. Not only are they citing these studies from the Lewin Group with a straight face, they’re using words like “independent,” and “non-partisan” to describe it. What they’re forgetting to say is that their research firm is “owned by a private insurance company,” and “completely biased when it comes to health care.”
July 29th, 2009 at 2:51 pmI just feel this health care reform is a blunt instrument that will end up throwing the baby out with the bath water, wasting money, and reducing the quality of live for millions of Americans.
We already spend more than any other industrialized nation for heath care and receive way, way less.
Why is health care a for-profit enterprise?
July 29th, 2009 at 2:53 pmTruth Troll
No. Going to two family doctors and one gynocologist appointment doesn’t even come close to paying the deductible. Out of $4,000 that we have to spend before coverage, we have spent MAYBE $500.
We haven’t ever, and likely never will come even remotely close to such a huge deductible without something catastrophic having happened.
And it’s not misforture, it’s how the system is designed.
Still waiting on why your way is better than ours. Got nothing, I assume?
July 29th, 2009 at 2:53 pmI just feel this health care reform is a blunt instrument that will end up throwing the baby out with the bath water, wasting money, and reducing the quality of live for millions of Americans.
And that’s different than the current system because…
July 29th, 2009 at 2:53 pmTruthTroll says
July 29th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
How are all those old folks doing over in Britain?
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/26/world/94-year-old-becomes-case-study-in-british-health-care-woes.html
____________________________________________________________
No matter how good a system is, one can always find isolated cases of people who have fallen through the cracks. But you’re not even trying very hard — this story is from January of 2002, seven and a half years ago.
When you come across a story (from a mainstream source, not a wingnut blog) telling us about how the United Kingdom National Health system is A) bankrupting the country, B) collapsing for lack of sustainability, or C) being privatized because the government “just can’t run it”, share it with us.
But if all you have are a few isolated horror stories, I don’t think you want to play that game. We have far too many horror stories over on our side of the pond with the broken system we have now.
July 29th, 2009 at 2:53 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
Oh, wait, I see your post, suggesting I shop around.
Which is stupid, because the plan I have is employer subsidized. Private insurance will cost us at least $200 a month MORE.
You are doing nothing here except showing that you don’t have a clue in hell what you’re talking about.
July 29th, 2009 at 2:55 pmOk, so let me get this straight – the argument is as follows:
1. Medicare cost more than we thought when it began.
2. The current proposal will cost more than we think.
3. we are glad we have Medicare now (even though it costs more than we thought) and wouldn’t dare campaign against it.
— DISCONNECT TO CONCLUSION —–
4. we couldn’t possibly be happy with a new “medicare like” program for everyone.
This is absolutely ridiculous. If anything, he just made an argument why, in 30+ years from now, we will be looking back and saying I am glad we passed universal health care, even IF it costs more than we think.
July 29th, 2009 at 2:56 pmBut if all you have are a few isolated horror stories, I don’t think you want to play that game.
I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again… a few scary stories is ALL they have. I call it the ‘urban legend’ insurance defense…
‘My sister’s cousin’s boyfriend’s uncle once stubbed his toe in England and he DIED waiting to be seen by the over-worked toe specialist!!! It’s true!!! She told me herself!! What’s that over there? UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE!!! BOO!!!’
July 29th, 2009 at 2:58 pmtokin librul
Since you weren’t paying any attention, I don’t have any children.
But of course, I’ll go ahead and wish cancer on you, because people as selfish and stupid as you deserve to die. I would simply wish that you get hit by a bus, but that’s too quick. People like you should suffer.
**of course I don’t think that, but it seems only fair that someone throws it back in your disgusting whore face, you nasty piece of shit.
July 29th, 2009 at 2:59 pmThe dems did a good job of resisting reform to the banking industry in 2005 and will not allow tort or social security reform or regulation.
You sure sound like a repub, if you’re not one. We all know the social security reform was meant to shovel more tax money to the stock market, and nothing else.
July 29th, 2009 at 2:59 pmTruthTroll says:
I think another way to address your concern would be that in many cases people grew up in these systems and don’t know any better. They think it is natural to wait 6 months for an MRI, to have rotting teeth, or to die of a cancer that people are more likely to survive in the United States.
Or maybe you just make this sh!t up.
Here’s something to chew on (with your shiny unrotted teeth).
And explain this chart. Explain why the US falls at #22 for life expectancy–and pay attention to the 21 countries above us on the list. What’s that about?
July 29th, 2009 at 2:59 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
People are dying here, TruthTroll… and the insurance companies are dis-enrolling the sickest on purpose.
Things are worse here than in England.
Rescission is real and the insurance CEO’s just told Congress it is not a practice they will be stopping.
People are dying.
We need to deal with it.
July 29th, 2009 at 3:05 pmThe committee investigation uncovered several rescission practices that one lawmaker called egregious, including targeting every policyholder diagnosed with leukemia, breast cancer and 1,400 other serious illnesses. Such investigations involve scouring the policyholder’s original application and years’ worth of medical and pharmacy records in search of any discrepancies.
source:http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jun/17/business/fi-rescind17
Your thoughts, TruthTroll?
July 29th, 2009 at 3:06 pmGumble bee:
Violent crime and drug abuse probably play into your numbers. They are important social issues, but they do not reflect the quality or availability of health care.
The CDC begs to differ with your poll. The report you cite has US life expenctency at 67. That’s a low-ball estimate if I ever saw one.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus08.pdf#026
July 29th, 2009 at 3:06 pmSince 1999, employer-sponsored health coverage premiums have increased by 119 percent, placing increasing cost burdens on employers and workers. [2] With workers’ wages growing at a much slower pace than health care costs, many face difficulty in affording out-of-pocket spending.
119% in ten years…
Now, tell me again how these associations and lobbyists are working to reduce costs?
July 29th, 2009 at 3:07 pmMike Pence is a freak.
July 29th, 2009 at 3:10 pmsmidget says:
You are doing nothing here except showing that you don’t have a clue in hell what you’re talking about.
July 29th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
BINGO.
July 29th, 2009 at 3:10 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
that’s a low-ball estimate if I ever saw one.
July 29th, 2009 at 3:14 pm—
Is this to imply that you are some sort of expert low baller?
The special interest groups are not concerned with your health, they are cincerned with protecting their profits thru legislation.
That is not free market capitalism, which would work to create a better, cheaper product thru competition.
Can you say cartel?
July 29th, 2009 at 3:15 pmI would remind you that state health agancies have also been known to let people die because of money.
I would remind you that state health agencies are not acting for-profit. And as I posted several times yesterday in the tort reform thread, you can sue for malpractice in all of these countries we are discussing.
The difference is, they pay way less and get way better care in those countries. That’s not ok.
July 29th, 2009 at 3:16 pmSmidget,
This is hardly an argument. It has been fun, but I’ve gotta go.
emsmidget says:
You are doing nothing here except showing that you don’t have a clue in hell what you’re talking about.
July 29th, 2009 at 3:17 pmJuly 29th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
TruthTroll says:
Gumble bee:
Violent crime and drug abuse probably play into your numbers. They are important social issues, but they do not reflect the quality or availability of health care.
How do you know they don’t? Just because it’s inconvenient?
How about infant mortality rate, which probably doesn’t include a lot of violent crime. How is it that the US is #33 (or #46 according to the CIA). CIA? Going to debunk them as a source?
Not going to address the column on Canadian care myths?
July 29th, 2009 at 3:18 pmOh don’t go. I have oh so many questions…
July 29th, 2009 at 3:19 pmDo you have anything other than anecdotal evidence of people slipping through the cracks, TruthTroll?
I eagerly await the study showing that the NHS in the UK is actively dis-enrolling people who are diagnosed with expensive illnesses as a matter of POLICY.
I haven’t seen one.
July 29th, 2009 at 3:19 pmdebadass,
This, too, is not an argument. Gotta go for real this time.
Is this to imply that you are some sort of expert low baller?
July 29th, 2009 at 3:20 pmGood point. George W. Bush did institute a national health care plan, in Iraq. Many of the American taxpayers who paid for it cannot afford to get their own health insurance. Dontcha just love irony?
July 29th, 2009 at 3:20 pmTruthTroll says:
Smidget,
This is hardly an argument. It has been fun, but I’ve gotta go.
TruthTroll declares victory and goes home… how original.
July 29th, 2009 at 3:21 pmBob Dole gets his Viagra covered from Medicare and the supplemental insurance is paid for from his government health care.
I suggest we tell have all of congress spend the next month applying for health insurance on the open market and see just what they can get and at what cost.
July 29th, 2009 at 3:25 pmToday they live in their ivory towers and pontificate to the peons below – let them try it for themselves.
The medical community shot themselves in the foot, by essentially raping the customer (aka sick individual) by price gouging and price fixing. Then the rise of the insurance company kept the doctors in line, but at the expense of once again, the sick person. Who often has to fight to get the insurance company to make good on their insurance.
The bigger issue is the socialization and waste of the Federal government by having needless and superfluous agencies which perform the same function as State agencies. We have long abandoned Liberal principles, and in exchange have given birth to a monster. If we get back to sound fiscal policies, sound foreign policy, printing our own currency (we need to abolish the private Federal Reserve), than maybe we can afford socialized medicine.
I hope you guys didn’t forget that this nation is bankrupt and the complete and catastrophic collapse of the U.S. dollar is imminent.
July 29th, 2009 at 3:27 pmTruth Troll (in case he comes back)
That line wasn’t intended to be an argument, but rather an observation.
Of course I notice that you completely ignored the part of my post which smacked down your suggestion that I look into other insurers by informing you that non-employer-subsidized insurance would cost even more.
Now you have run away without explaining why your system is better than ours. All you really accomplished was telling us what kind of plan you have (good for you) and telling me to shop around (as if I hadn’t already…do I come across as so stupid that I would accept such a shitty plan if I had another option?).
This is why so many people my age have no insurance at all. We are going to have to cancel ours because between our student loans (which are nearly triple our mortgage) are eating up all of our income. Frankly we’re lucky we can eat. And our only crime is being too young to have paid off debts and having the audicity to go to college, like we were told we had to if we wanted anything decent in life.
Those people who told us that were wrong. We can’t get anything decent in life anyway. We don’t have the silver spoon we would have had to have been born with to get a deal like that.
July 29th, 2009 at 3:27 pmdebadass,
This, too, is not an argument. Gotta go for real this time.
Is this to imply that you are some sort of expert low baller?
July 29th, 2009 at 3:29 pm— it is spelled “dbadass”. Still are you suggesting that if you don’t like a stat you can just announce that it is an obvious “lowball” because you don’t like it? My point is what qualifies you do make that announcement? Besides who crowned you the decider of what does and does not constitute an argument. I never claimed it to be one. My goal was to point out your arrogant assumptions…
TruthTroll says
July 29th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
You cite rising costs and a culture of greed in the medical sector since the 1950’s as reasons for supporting Medicare, yet these realities grew along with government involvement.
Hasn’t government involvement had anything to do with these costs due to fraud and inflated billing that goes unnoticed in all the red tape? Also, John Edwards and his ilk weren’t suing the pants off doctors for things they had little control over, driving up malpractice insurance.
_____________________________________________________________
If you’re going to try to put forth a convincing argument against government involvement in health insurance, you might not want to use tired wingnut talking points that have already been debunked.
1. You attempt to conflate rising costs and “government involvement” as two concepts that grew at the same time, and are therefore related. In the first place, “government involvement” is really limited to Medicare and Medicaid (both created in 1965) and SCHIP (created in 1997). Not counting government programs created at state and local levels. Rising costs started escalating out of control with the advent of health-care-for-profit, which was enabled by the HMO Act of 1973. One really has nothing to do with the other.
2. The “Medicare is riddled with fraud and waste” meme is getting old. Nobody is claiming there’s no fraud going on with Medicare. However, Medicare actively goes after those who defraud it, and their recovery rates increase each year. Their fraud rate is no higher than that experienced by private insurers — if it was higher, it’s doubtful they could operate with the low overhead they do.
3. And you bring forth another old chestnut — the one about how large malpractice awards are what’s driving health costs up. Wrong. Malpractice costs amount to such a small percentage of the whole enchilada (it comes to about $12.00 per person per year), that it has little or no effect on health care costs overall.
July 29th, 2009 at 3:35 pmI wonder if Ronald Reagan accepted the socialized government funded health care plan when he became governor of California in 1966.
July 29th, 2009 at 3:35 pmMissMolly, I second your remarks.
I have two parents on Medicare, and I had four grandparents whose lives were enhanced by Medicare. I wouldn’t call that “nothing” — if it wasn’t for Medicare, my parents would be suffering from a number of maladies they wouldn’t be able to afford to treat, and my grandparents would have died years before they did.
Mr grandmother had NOTHING until Medicare kicked in for her — she relied totally on my parents for her support and medical care. Thankfully, she was pretty healthy until she suddenly died, but I remember an appendicitis attack that caused her to want to die because of the burden the surgery was placing on my parents.
July 29th, 2009 at 3:39 pmIn the 50’s people who got cancer, simply died. Heart attacks and strokes, same thing. Severe arthritis, canes and wheelchairs until death. Repugs falsely claim that a public health plan would be a death sentence for older Americans — How many thousands die every year because they can’t afford to see a doctor for treatment?
This album cover picture of Reagan came from Bill Maher’s show on HBO this past week.
I don’t agree with everything Maher says, but he is very provocative and interesting.
In the show, he lampooned Reagan for making the case that socialize medicine would lead to government bureaucrats controlling health care decisions. (From the album with the cover shown above, back in 1961).
10 minutes after that, Maher commented on how most of the costs of healthcare are associated with those in the last 6 months of life. He then raised the specter of the government making the difficult decisions to either agree to cover or deny treatments to those possibly terminal patients. And how people may not be ready for the government to say, ‘you’re time is up’.
So, in ten minutes, Maher goes from how laughable Reagan was to equate socialized medicine with bureaucrats making healthcare decisions, to citing an excellent example of just that dilemma.
There are probably a lot of benefits that will be realized by socializing medicine. But, there will also be many compromises.
July 29th, 2009 at 4:13 pmyour
July 29th, 2009 at 4:14 pmThere are probably a lot of benefits that will be realized by socializing medicine. But, there will also be many compromises.
Accountants already make these decisions.
Read about rescission.
Why are you willing to allow that to continue?
July 29th, 2009 at 4:15 pmI’m having trouble seeing why this would be a problem …
;-)
It’s simple: The GOP has used the same points for years, and it’s worked every single time. Why wouldn’t they dust it off and trot it out again?
Of course, if we had an honest and functional media in this nation, they couldn’t get away with it. But we don’t, so they do.
**sigh**
July 29th, 2009 at 4:20 pmWhoops — it was Goldwater, not Atwater, quoted in #122. My fault …
July 29th, 2009 at 4:21 pmWhere were all these Wingnuts when Bush was pushing through his Medicare Drug Bill a few years ago? Chirp Chirp Creeeek Creeeek.
July 29th, 2009 at 4:34 pmWow, Medicare was born the same day I was. Today they’re giving my parents much more grief that I ever did, so no cake for them.
July 29th, 2009 at 4:37 pmIs that how Reagan died? Did some government bureaucrat from his publicly funded health care plan tell him his time was up?
July 29th, 2009 at 4:39 pmThat’s too bad. I didn’t know the government forced seniors to accept Medicare.
July 29th, 2009 at 4:41 pmApparently many of those on the right feel we should set health care policy based on the absolute worst case scenario.
Too bad they didn’t feel that way when evaluating the prospects of going into Iraq.
July 29th, 2009 at 4:42 pmThey were all too busy licking Bush’s balls to say anything.
July 29th, 2009 at 4:43 pmSocial Security and Medicare are going broke.
July 29th, 2009 at 4:45 pmNo links?
Big surprise.
July 29th, 2009 at 4:49 pmMarkD says:
It’s simple: The GOP has used the same points for years, and it’s worked every single time. Why wouldn’t they dust it off and trot it out again?
You are correct. When Jeb Bush runs for President on a smaller government and tax cuts platform, we will find out if the voters have learned anything.
July 29th, 2009 at 4:51 pmpags2 says:
MarkD says:
It’s simple: The GOP has used the same points for years, and it’s worked every single time. Why wouldn’t they dust it off and trot it out again?
You are correct. When Jeb Bush runs for President on a smaller government and tax cuts platform, we will find out if the voters have learned anything.
I am sure that they have learned plenty over the last 8 and 1/2 years.. Don’t vote another Bush in and Sure as hell don’t give Obama, or his ilk, another 4 years. We need real change and real reform that only a 3rd party can provide.
July 29th, 2009 at 4:54 pmralph the wonder llama says:
conservative guy says:
Social Security and Medicare are going broke.
No links?
Big surprise.
Umm so are they going broke or not?
July 29th, 2009 at 4:55 pmshoeless says:
RobertSeattle says:
——————————————————————————–
Where were all these Wingnuts when Bush was pushing through his Medicare Drug Bill a few years ago? Chirp Chirp Creeeek Creeeek.
They were all too busy licking Bush’s balls to say anything.
That was a huge mistake and those of us who are fiscal conservatives were castigating him. Where were you? Cheering I’m sure.
July 29th, 2009 at 4:56 pmMedicare and Medicaid have lots of unseen benefits. I worked my way through college as a Personal Care Worker, a Home Health Aide and finally a Certified Nursing Assistant. I worked for college students, most of them in wheelchairs.
The types of ailments my clients had included cerebral palsy, muscular dystrophy and quadriplegia to name just a few. These young people would never have been able to get a post secondary education without Medicare and/or Medicaid.
Without Medicare or Medicaid, I might not have been able to go to college either.
July 29th, 2009 at 4:58 pmLevi the Dungbeetle says:
Medicare and Medicaid have lots of unseen benefits. I worked my way through college as a Personal Care Worker, a Home Health Aide and finally a Certified Nursing Assistant. I worked for college students, most of them in wheelchairs.
The types of ailments my clients had included cerebral palsy, muscular dystrophy and quadriplegia to name just a few. These young people would never have been able to get a post secondary education without Medicare and/or Medicaid.
Without Medicare or Medicaid, I might not have been able to go to college either.
Great, my grandchildren have made it possible for you to go to college. I think a thank you is in order.
July 29th, 2009 at 5:00 pm54thursday,
Please provide a link of “fiscal conservatives” castigating Bush over his Medicare drug bill.
This is further complicated by the fact that there is not such thing as a “fiscal conservative” because “fiscal consertives” have outspent the “tax and spend” democrats hundreds to one.
Try again.
July 29th, 2009 at 5:03 pmAre you asking me?
I didn’t make the original claim, did I?
July 29th, 2009 at 5:03 pmLevi the Dungbeetle says:
54thursday,
Please provide a link of “fiscal conservatives” castigating Bush over his Medicare drug bill.
This is further complicated by the fact that there is not such thing as a “fiscal conservative” because “fiscal consertives” have outspent the “tax and spend” democrats hundreds to one.
Try again.
Name one fiscal conservative who voted for that bill. Impossible because they were not fiscal conservatives. Having an (R) in front of your name does not make you a fiscal conservative.
July 29th, 2009 at 5:05 pm54thursday,
Please provide evidence that the money I earned to put myself through college will be paid by your grandchildren.
July 29th, 2009 at 5:05 pm#
ralph the wonder llama says:
54thursday says:
ralph the wonder llama says:
conservative guy says:
Social Security and Medicare are going broke.
No links?
Big surprise.
Umm so are they going broke or not?
Are you asking me?
I didn’t make the original claim, did I?
I see so you are saying that Medicare and social security are solvent and will be for the forseeable future. Intersting.
July 29th, 2009 at 5:06 pmFiscal conservative is an oxymoron.
July 29th, 2009 at 5:06 pmLevi the Dungbeetle says:
Fiscal conservative is an oxymoron.
And how is that?
July 29th, 2009 at 5:06 pmLevi the Dungbeetle says:
54thursday,
Please provide evidence that the money I earned to put myself through college will be paid by your grandchildren.
First I want to see evidence that he’ll ever have grandchildren, since that would first require someone else to make babies with him. Or her.
July 29th, 2009 at 5:07 pmAh, yes… the “No True Scotsman” defense.
Well played.
July 29th, 2009 at 5:07 pmAmerican conservatives support rampant, wasteful spending and massive government growth.
I am politically on the far left, but I am much more fiscally conservative than any Republican.
July 29th, 2009 at 5:09 pmLevi the Dungbeetle says:
54thursday,
Please provide evidence that the money I earned to put myself through college will be paid by your grandchildren.
Real simple, we are borrowing money at a mind boggling rate to pay for entitlements. That money has to be paid back. The debt that is created is so large that even if we stopped spending today, it would take generations of productivity to produce the capital to pay those debts back.
July 29th, 2009 at 5:09 pm#
ralph the wonder llama says:
54thursday says:
Name one fiscal conservative who voted for that bill. Impossible because they were not fiscal conservatives. Having an (R) in front of your name does not make you a fiscal conservative.
Ah, yes… the “No True Scotsman” defense.
Well played.
OK I will ask you directly.. Are both Medicare and Social Security Solvent today and will they be solvent any time in the for seeable future?
July 29th, 2009 at 5:11 pmFiscal conservative is an oxymoron because there isn’t one conservative in America that has the least clue how to conserve anything, be it government spending, the environment, or anything else that could be conserved.
Conservatives in America are corporate sponsored fascists trying to establish a theocracy in America, and they don’t care if they destroy the country doing it.
July 29th, 2009 at 5:12 pmI see so you are saying that Medicare and social security are solvent and will be for the forseeable future. Intersting.
Hmmm, I wonder if there were a way to cut costs and ensure better insurance coverage for everyone?
Maybe develop a Universal Health Care system? Like every other industrialized nation in the world already has?
I feel like you and I had this discussion yesterday, thursday.
Do you like paying more for less effective care?
July 29th, 2009 at 5:13 pmLevi the Dungbeetle says:
American conservatives support rampant, wasteful spending and massive government growth.
I am politically on the far left, but I am much more fiscally conservative than any Republican.
Great, it’s good to know that we have one more person on this board not supporting the current Healthcare reform or Health Insurance Reform, or whatever he is calling it today, that is being pushed by the dems.
July 29th, 2009 at 5:13 pmHow about you read what I wrote and see if you can figure out what I’m saying?
(Here’s a hint: I’m saying that the OP made a claim of fact without any effort to support it through a link to an objective authoritative source.)
July 29th, 2009 at 5:14 pmGreat, it’s good to know that we have one more person on this board not supporting the current Healthcare reform or Health Insurance Reform, or whatever he is calling it today, that is being pushed by the dems.
Because it doesn’t go far enough?
July 29th, 2009 at 5:15 pmThen you’re for a real Public option? Like single payer? You astonish me! I agree…
54thursday said:
Please provide evidence that we were borrowing money when I was in college (in the 80’s), or that the money borrowed to pay me for my labor hasn’t already been paid off.
July 29th, 2009 at 5:16 pmWe are also borrowing money at a mind boggling rate to pay for foreign entanglements.
At least with an investment in our own people — education, services, infrastructure — we have a chance of realizing a return on those investments.
July 29th, 2009 at 5:21 pm54thursday:
I am totally in support of a public option health care plan. Apparently you think a fiscal conservative would oppose a public option, but that is simply ignorance on your part.
Our current health care system is totally inefficient and massively overpriced. The public option will save a staggering amount of money, and saving money is fiscally conservative.
If you think you are fiscally conservative but you do not support the public option in health care, then you are fundamentally ignorant what it means to be fiscally conservative or you are ignorant of what the public option is all about.
Please do not infer I support your wingnutty ways. It is disingenuous and makes you look like a fool. You do not speak for me you loony wingnut.
July 29th, 2009 at 5:23 pmLevi the Dungbeetle says:
I am politically on the far left, but I am much more fiscally conservative than any Republican.
I am politically on the far left. However, when it comes to fiscal matters, I believe that we, as a people, need to invest money in our society for various matters that conservatives refuse to acknowledge as problems. I do not condone just throwing money at problems, but in the current state of affairs, we need to invest a lot of money that should have been done during 1994 to 2006. The benign neglect has allowed matters to grow to crisis proportion. We need to stop reacting to problems and use foresight with a plan to tackle these problems before they get bad. However, the greed of many people has blinded them to the problems who think more about their wallet than the good of the country.
July 29th, 2009 at 5:24 pmbelaccifer lacca says:
I see so you are saying that Medicare and social security are solvent and will be for the forseeable future. Intersting.
Hmmm, I wonder if there were a way to cut costs and ensure better insurance coverage for everyone?
Maybe develop a Universal Health Care system? Like every other industrialized nation in the world already has?
I feel like you and I had this discussion yesterday, thursday.
Do you like paying more for less effective care?
I would like to have a system where The consumers were incentified to make smart value based decision on their healthcare. Wouldn’t that make more sense? Maybe it is just me.
July 29th, 2009 at 5:24 pmTo be fair, Levi, you’re not really describing an oxymoron. You’re describing the irony that results when a label is stretched so far out of shape that it ceases to relate to its original meaning any longer.
“Fiscal conservative” isn’t a true oxymoron in that the terms, properly understood, do not contradict each other. Rather it is a phrase that suffers from the evolved meaninglessness of the second element in the phrase.
July 29th, 2009 at 5:25 pmralph the wonder llama says:
54thursday says:
ralph the wonder llama says:
Are you asking me?
I didn’t make the original claim, did I?
I see so you are saying that Medicare and social security are solvent and will be for the forseeable future. Intersting.
How about you read what I wrote and see if you can figure out what I’m saying?
(Here’s a hint: I’m saying that the OP made a claim of fact without any effort to support it through a link to an objective authoritative source.)
I don’t care about the process I am asking you a question.
July 29th, 2009 at 5:26 pmLevi the Dungbeetle says:
54thursday:
I am totally in support of a public option health care plan. Apparently you think a fiscal conservative would oppose a public option, but that is simply ignorance on your part.
Our current health care system is totally inefficient and massively overpriced. The public option will save a staggering amount of money, and saving money is fiscally conservative.
If you think you are fiscally conservative but you do not support the public option in health care, then you are fundamentally ignorant what it means to be fiscally conservative or you are ignorant of what the public option is all about.
Please do not infer I support your wingnutty ways. It is disingenuous and makes you look like a fool. You do not speak for me you loony wingnut.
So where is the proof that a public option will save money? The CBO doesn’t seem to agree with you.
July 29th, 2009 at 5:27 pmI would like to have a system where The consumers were incentified to make smart value based decision on their healthcare. Wouldn’t that make more sense? Maybe it is just me.
Do you know anyone who is getting health care they don’t need just ’cause it’s paid for by insurance?
“Well Doris, all I needed was my appendix out but while they were in there I had ‘em do a couple of bypasses just to be safe…”
That’s crazy, you know that right?
I would like to give doctors an incentive to make the best call for patient care by removing for-profit insurance companies that have an incentive NOT to pay for care. Wouldn’t that make sense? Maybe it’s just me and the rest of the industrialized world.
July 29th, 2009 at 5:29 pmInvesting money, even huge amounts of money, is fiscally conservative, if you invest wisely.
Fascist theocrat Republicans say all government spending is bad. That is an ignorant point of view. If we were willing to put aside enough money, we could pay for universal healthcare coverage just off the interest.
Republicans do not want to invest in America because they are riding the corporate gravy train. Their theocratic cult believes the rapture is imminent, so they have no reason to invest in the future, it does not exist.
July 29th, 2009 at 5:30 pm#
belaccifer lacca says:
I would like to have a system where The consumers were incentified to make smart value based decision on their healthcare. Wouldn’t that make more sense? Maybe it is just me.
Do you know anyone who is getting health care they don’t need just ’cause it’s paid for by insurance?
“Well Doris, all I needed was my appendix out but while they were in there I had ‘em do a couple of bypasses just to be safe…”
That’s crazy, you know that right?
I would like to give doctors an incentive to make the best call for patient care by removing for-profit insurance companies that have an incentive NOT to pay for care. Wouldn’t that make sense? Maybe it’s just me and the rest of the industrialized world.
How much does it cost for you to go to the doctor for an average visit? Do you know? Did you shop to find the best service at the best rate? Was the process competitive? No because you do not care because you were not incentified to do so. That is the issue not your inane example above.
July 29th, 2009 at 5:31 pmLevi the Dungbeetle says:
Investing money, even huge amounts of money, is fiscally conservative, if you invest wisely.
Fascist theocrat Republicans say all government spending is bad. That is an ignorant point of view. If we were willing to put aside enough money, we could pay for universal healthcare coverage just off the interest.
Republicans do not want to invest in America because they are riding the corporate gravy train. Their theocratic cult believes the rapture is imminent, so they have no reason to invest in the future, it does not exist.
It is my belief as a fiscal conservative that public money should mainly be used for things that private money effectively cannot. I.E. Interstates, Defense, etc.
July 29th, 2009 at 5:35 pm54thursday said:
I thought you had heard of competition? Competition lowers costs. How much those costs will be lowered remains to be seen, but I am willing to invest in America’s future because I still want America to be a successful nation that can compete with the other, more advanced nations of the world.
July 29th, 2009 at 5:35 pmIt is true that fiscal conservative is not an oxymoron. I am just so frustrated over the ignorance of wingnuts like 54thursday and sometimes a rant feels good.
July 29th, 2009 at 5:37 pmNo, it’s not just you. The insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies are also on board with you. So you’re in good company, in a manner of speaking.
See, the problem with treating health care as a consumer good, in my view, is that the normal effective dynamics of a free market system break down when you come to this service.
Choice is the first one. It has broken down two ways: first, to be effective as a consumer-driven control on prices, choice must include not only the opportunity to shop for another vendor, but it must also allow for the consumer to forego purchasing from anyone. That way, when a certain price point is reached — beyond which the value to the consumer no longer equals the cost — the market price can no longer rise.
This condition is not met in the health care dynamic. When one has a life-threatening condition or potentially debilitating injury, that consumer no longer has the option to do without. The potential catastrophic consequences of such a choice renders it effectively meaningless as a check on cost.
The second way Choice breaks down is the current playing field, as designed and groomed by the insurance industry. The barriers put up in the way of consumers switching policies easily (waiting periods, limited benefits, pre-existing conditions) tilt the field so far in the direction of the industry that consumers are severely restricted in their ability to shop effectively for a better deal, and it also cuts down on the insurer’s motivation to provide satisfactory service.
The consumer cannot really get a good sense of the ability of the insurer to provide satisfactory service until he submits a claim. And that point, the insurer has a very small motivation to serve the consumer and a large motivation to deny the claim.
So the “free-market” model for health insurance doesn’t work the way Milton Friedman might have liked.
It’s simply not a standard consumer good. And it should not be treated or seen as such.
July 29th, 2009 at 5:39 pmLevi the Dungbeetle says:
54thursday said:
where is the proof that a public option will save money?
I thought you had heard of competition? Competition lowers costs. How much those costs will be lowered remains to be seen, but I am willing to invest in America’s future because I still want America to be a successful nation that can compete with the other, more advanced nations of the world.
And the CBO agrees with you correct? Actually the Public option would seem to be more reflective of the Japanese Steel Dumping measures of the 80’s and 90’s. Selling a product at no or negative margins to put local steel mills out of work. Once they are gone you can take charge of the market. I think that someone called that predatory marketing. Who was that again?
July 29th, 2009 at 5:39 pmHow much does it cost for you to go to the doctor for an average visit? Do you know? Did you shop to find the best service at the best rate? Was the process competitive? No because you do not care because you were not incentified to do so. That is the issue not your inane example above.
No- my insurance company told me who I could see… they gave me a list of ‘preferred’ providers. That’s where I can go. If I’m ill and need to go to one of those ‘preferred’ providers, the Doctor will treat me and then submit a bill for her services to my insurance company. My insurance company will then either pay it or disallow it… often even the Doctor is unsure how much will be covered by my plan because all of them are different. If I get catastrophically ill my insurance company will begin scouring my records to see if I ever entered any information incorrectly… if I did they will disallow my claim through a process called rescission. My insurance is provided by my employer. I have never had a say in what insurance provider we will use or how much my employer is willing to pay. All of these decisions and all of this paperwork costs money. A lot of money. More money than any other nation in the world spends on health care.
Explain how I could reduce costs by being a better consumer again?
I agree this example is also inane… unfortunately, this inane example is real and my actual situation.
July 29th, 2009 at 5:40 pm54thursday said:
Private money effectively cannot provide quality healthcare at a reasonable price to every America, therefore by your logic, public money should be used. That is fiscally conservative by your own admission.
July 29th, 2009 at 5:41 pmOh, now I get it — when you were trying to make it seem like I had made a claim, you were just “asking a question”.
The fact that someone else made a claim of fact without source and I commented on that, somehow led you to try to put words in my mouth relating to that claim.
Was there a reason for this approach?
July 29th, 2009 at 5:43 pmPerfectly stated, Levi.
July 29th, 2009 at 5:44 pmMike Pence will be the next winger to be caught with his zipper down. What a hypocritical ass clown.
July 29th, 2009 at 5:44 pmralph the wonder llama says:
Choice is the first one. It has broken down two ways: first, to be effective as a consumer-driven control on prices, choice must include not only the opportunity to shop for another vendor, but it must also allow for the consumer to forego purchasing from anyone. That way, when a certain price point is reached — beyond which the value to the consumer no longer equals the cost — the market price can no longer rise.
This condition is not met in the health care dynamic. When one has a life-threatening condition or potentially debilitating injury, that consumer no longer has the option to do without. The potential catastrophic consequences of such a choice renders it effectively meaningless as a check on cost.
I understand your point but I would say that most Americans do not have a real choice in whether or not they need to buy or pay for transportation. This would seem to offer the ability of price inelasticity as as well, but since their is true competition in the market, and various options and price points with a truly transparent market as to price, reliability and quality, the market is extremely competitive with the worst performers failing and the best rising to the top. I agree we need big change. I just think that we should be able to buy our cars, not be forced to ride the bus.
July 29th, 2009 at 5:47 pmIf wingers were truly concerned about fiscal responsiblity, they were poor stewards of the economy when they controlled all three branches of government, when Raygun was president, when daddy Bush was president, and when the shrub was president. All those presidents ran a deficit (highest ever at the time) and two of them raised taxes. Name the two. Hint: The lord and master raygun was one of them.
July 29th, 2009 at 5:47 pmIt might seem that way to you, but you take the most extremely negative view of an otherwise reasonable government effort in order to reach that assumption.
In fact, it sounds like you expect the government to behave as a corporation would, in an effort to corner the market for itself.
July 29th, 2009 at 5:48 pmLevi the Dungbeetle says:
54thursday said:
It is my belief as a fiscal conservative that public money should mainly be used for things that private money effectively cannot. I.E. Interstates, Defense, etc.
Private money effectively cannot provide quality healthcare at a reasonable price to every America, therefore by your logic, public money should be used. That is fiscally conservative by your own admission.
Private money can and will under the correct circumstances in a truly free market system.
July 29th, 2009 at 5:48 pmWitnessing wingers trying to defend a failed system is laughable. But they defended the Bush Crime Family and it also was a failure.
July 29th, 2009 at 5:50 pmralph the wonder llama says:
54thursday says:
ralph the wonder llama says:
54thursday says:
I see so you are saying that Medicare and social security are solvent and will be for the forseeable future. Intersting.
How about you read what I wrote and see if you can figure out what I’m saying?
(Here’s a hint: I’m saying that the OP made a claim of fact without any effort to support it through a link to an objective authoritative source.)
I don’t care about the process I am asking you a question.
Oh, now I get it — when you were trying to make it seem like I had made a claim, you were just “asking a question”.
The fact that someone else made a claim of fact without source and I commented on that, somehow led you to try to put words in my mouth relating to that claim.
Was there a reason for this approach?
Excuse me for making an assumption that your questioning his statement and wanting backup of his quasi-facts was a covert way of trying to defeat his point. If you agree with his point and were just making an argument of process I do sincerely apologize.
July 29th, 2009 at 5:51 pmralph the wonder llama says:
54thursday says:
Actually the Public option would seem to be more reflective of the Japanese Steel Dumping measures of the 80’s and 90’s.
It might seem that way to you, but you take the most extremely negative view of an otherwise reasonable government effort in order to reach that assumption.
In fact, it sounds like you expect the government to behave as a corporation would, in an effort to corner the market for itself.
Agreed, I do.
July 29th, 2009 at 5:53 pmkasinca says:
Witnessing wingers trying to defend a failed system is laughable. But they defended the Bush Crime Family and it also was a failure.
Who is defending a failed system. I certainly hope that you are not talking about me. I agree with changing the system, just not giving it to the gov to make a bad situation even worse.
July 29th, 2009 at 5:53 pm…except that there IS competition provided by the government, at least in any area with a regional bus service.
And there is no force in transportation similar to a life-threatening circumstance requiring medical treatment. One can comfortably align ones life, through choice of living arrangements and employment, to the point where one can do without owning a car. Manhattanites do this all the time. If one needs a car for a temporary trip, one can rent.
Besides, your analogy falls apart in another important way: an automobile is a solid durable consumer good. If it fails to provide the value it promises, one can easily discard it and get another.
Not so with health care, for some of the reasons I outlined above. The business model in health insurance is shared risk. A car company will be willing to sell the same car at the same price to anyone with the scratch or the credit profile. An insurance company will evaluate each candidate very closely and what winds up happening is that those candidates who actually need the service are the least attractive to the insurer.
That’s counter to the free-market ideal.
July 29th, 2009 at 5:57 pmThen surely you cannot share the objection that others make, that government-run health insurance would be necessarily less efficient than a corporate bureaucracy?
July 29th, 2009 at 5:58 pmralph the wonder llama says:
The second way Choice breaks down is the current playing field, as designed and groomed by the insurance industry. The barriers put up in the way of consumers switching policies easily (waiting periods, limited benefits, pre-existing conditions) tilt the field so far in the direction of the industry that consumers are severely restricted in their ability to shop effectively for a better deal, and it also cuts down on the insurer’s motivation to provide satisfactory service.
I agree with you that the system needs change. I just do not think that a gov takeover is the correct change. You have to know in you heart of hearts what will happen. Gov will say it will cost 1 trillion to make universal healthcre happen. It will end up being a huge mess and costing 12 trillion. If you can not look at history and tell that this will be the case then I do not know what to say.
July 29th, 2009 at 5:59 pmI generally like to see evidence of a claim before I evaluate it, unlike, for instance, you, apparently.
I have skepticism about the claim (especially since I recognize the poster as one of our dimmer bulbs here) but I was hoping he could provide some form of back-up for it, rather than relying on a simple declarative statement to make his point — a tactic which, I’m sure you’ll agree, is pretty weak.
July 29th, 2009 at 6:01 pmIf you can not look at history and tell that this will be the case then I do not know what to say.
If you cannot look around the world and see the many successful models for Universal Health Care in other countries, then I do not know what to say.
Universal Coverage is the goal… can we agree on that? That everyone should have coverage?
July 29th, 2009 at 6:02 pmralph the wonder llama says:
54thursday says:
ralph the wonder llama says:
In fact, it sounds like you expect the government to behave as a corporation would, in an effort to corner the market for itself.
Agreed, I do.
Then surely you cannot share the objection that others make, that government-run health insurance would be necessarily less efficient than a corporate bureaucracy?
Sure I can, the gov has seemingly limitless resources. It can be inefficient and just borrow without, print or raise taxes to bring in revenue without repercussions. A business can not.
July 29th, 2009 at 6:03 pmralph the wonder llama says:
54thursday says:
Excuse me for making an assumption that your questioning his statement and wanting backup of his quasi-facts was a covert way of trying to defeat his point. If you agree with his point and were just making an argument of process I do sincerely apologize.
I generally like to see evidence of a claim before I evaluate it, unlike, for instance, you, apparently.
I have skepticism about the claim (especially since I recognize the poster as one of our dimmer bulbs here) but I was hoping he could provide some form of back-up for it, rather than relying on a simple declarative statement to make his point — a tactic which, I’m sure you’ll agree, is pretty weak.
I understand your point. My point was that I do not spend a lot of time trying to challenge such arguments unless I disagree with them. Again I assumed that you disagreed and was challenging you, and still am, on whether or not you believed that Medicare and SS are solvent and will be in the future. His making statements with or without facts was not germain, in my opinion.
July 29th, 2009 at 6:07 pmYou say you agree with me that the system needs to change, yet the problems I mention all argue against not just the current system, but virtually all of the proposals you have offered. To say that I haven’t looked at history seems like a simplistic way to dismiss what i’ve said without really addressing it. In fact I have looked at history, both here and abroad. And my reading of history tells me that the current system is irreparably broken and embracing the free market will do nothing but make it worse.
The true fundamental problem is that the insurance and pharmaceutical lobby is too powerful and that their interests are in almost direct conflict with those of the rest of us.
July 29th, 2009 at 6:07 pmThat’s odd, since his making statements without facts was exactly and exclusively my point.
July 29th, 2009 at 6:08 pmbelaccifer lacca says:
If you can not look at history and tell that this will be the case then I do not know what to say.
If you cannot look around the world and see the many successful models for Universal Health Care in other countries, then I do not know what to say.
Universal Coverage is the goal… can we agree on that? That everyone should have coverage?
I do not believe that anyone who is sick should not get treatment because they can not afford it. That is a point on which we can agree. How we get to that point is where we differ. I would hope that you in kind could agree with my statement about assumed and realized gov costs in this country.
July 29th, 2009 at 6:09 pmAre you seriously advancing this argument?
If you actually believe this, then what’s your argument against higher taxes? After all, there are no repercussions, right?
Are you a believer in Cheney’s school of fiscal conservatism? You know… “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter”?
July 29th, 2009 at 6:11 pmralph the wonder llama says:
54thursday says:
His making statements with or without facts was not germain, in my opinion.
That’s odd, since his making statements without facts was exactly and exclusively my point.
Again, that was not the point of my query. It is my belief that you understand that and are avoiding the question. That is obviously your choice.
July 29th, 2009 at 6:12 pmLet me ask you a question, 54thursday:
do you also believe that law enforcement should be subject to the free market?
What is the difference between law enforcement and access to health care as public goods?
July 29th, 2009 at 6:13 pmShoeless,
Tallygirl is just making noise — she hasn’t a clue.
Medicare is not mandatory – but I don’t know any seniors who don’t belong. It was/is necessary and it works; people like it. You can bet the politicians and the rich bastards who want it to end, will not step away from it when they are 65.
July 29th, 2009 at 6:13 pmAnd it’s my belief that you are deliberately refusing to acknowledge the point of my original comment.
The fact that the other poster disappeared might lend some force to my position that he had no interest in a discussion like you and I are having; he simply wanted to drop a deuce and split.
But had he wanted to have a discussion, my comment might have helped him develop a stronger argument for his position. It’s a “teach a man to fish” kind of thing.
July 29th, 2009 at 6:15 pm54thursday: “Who is defending a failed system. I certainly hope that you are not talking about me. I agree with changing the system, just not giving it to the gov to make a bad situation even worse.”
Our single-payer medicare system works with a 3% overhead. Your insurance-based system works with up to a 30% overhead. Single-payer isn’t a takeover of the health care system. It’s a takeover of the health insurance system. Even our example of completely socialized health care, the VA runs with about 5-6% overhead making it much more efficient than private.
We’ve tried the private way. That doesn’t work. Let’s try the public way.
July 29th, 2009 at 6:17 pmI would hope that you in kind could agree with my statement about assumed and realized gov costs in this country.
I agree… but I also notice that we currently spend more than any other nation on earth on health care.
I wonder why you feel that many smaller bureaucracies in our model are more efficient than the government run systems in other countries when the facts seem to indicate the exact opposite is true?
July 29th, 2009 at 6:19 pmI have news for Pence and all wingnuts: I am a Vietnam Veteran without healthcare since I lost my job. I am trying like hell to get onto a government plan call VA healthcare and I will be glad if I get it.
July 29th, 2009 at 6:21 pm54thursday said:
Perhaps this is true, unfortunately, in the real world, private money is not doing it. As you said, if private money isn’t doing it, then it should be done with private money and that is what we are going to do. If you don’t like it, tough.
July 29th, 2009 at 6:25 pmWrong dipshit. Bush’s drug plan is nothing more than the most gigantic subsidy in the world to the pharmecutical industry. That was a Republican plan you fool.
Are you really stupid enough to believe liberals were Cheering the Republican giveaway to the drug companies, or are you just acting the fool?
July 29th, 2009 at 6:28 pm54wingnut said:
Since when did a public option become a government takeover? Wingnuts love to throw out terms like “government takeover” when it suits their agenda, but it is just another propaganda talking point.
July 29th, 2009 at 6:30 pm189 54wingnut said:
When did the government get limitless resources? Do you honestly believe the government has limitless resources? Do you even know what resources are? What about the government makes it seem to you that it has limitless resources?
I am stunned by the ignorance.
July 29th, 2009 at 6:35 pm54thursday: “where is the proof that a public option will save money?”
Again, we know that our own single-payer system, Medicare, runs with a 3% overhead and that insurance-based runs at up to 30%. There’s no opinion here; no “proof” needed; it’s established fact. The reasons are clear. According to the WHO, we spend about $5700 PER PERSON on health care in our insurance-based system. The next closest industrial nation spends about $2700 and the average industrial nation spends half PER PERSON what we pay.
The difference is the profit the insurance industry gets to stand between you and your health care.
July 29th, 2009 at 7:26 pmI’d just like to know where and what is this “free market” some people keep mentioning. There never has been a “free market” in a mass society and there never will be. In anything beyond a small community, government must be there if only to enforce contract disputes. But, there is also monetary systems and zoning laws and environmental regulations which exist for the good of society. We’ve all agreed that a wealthy capitalist cannot, for example, stick a chemical plant in your neighborhood and start belching dangerous chemicals into your air and on to your streets. He’s not free to do that. It’s not a free market.
July 29th, 2009 at 7:32 pmMaybe the reason so few republicans seem to believe in evolution is they themselves never evolve from their tired, wrong, destructive, and un-American positions.
July 29th, 2009 at 9:28 pmTruthTroll says:
missco,
You cite rising costs and a culture of greed in the medical sector since the 1950’s as reasons for supporting Medicare, yet these realities grew along with government involvement.
Hasn’t government involvement had anything to do with these costs due to fraud and inflated billing that goes unnoticed in all the red tape? [...]
Yeah, when Nixon got involved and changed HMOs into profit centers.
July 29th, 2009 at 10:35 pm*
http://insurancecompanyrules.org/
*
pass it on.
July 29th, 2009 at 11:58 pmThere is no incentive for a business to provide health care, apart from profits. Isn’t that obvious?
July 30th, 2009 at 2:46 amFrom the fabulous “Cut the Crap” site:
Today I got the bill for our health plan at work. We have three people covered, and covered 100%, except, we each pay a $15 copay. Our bill went up 9.14% this year. If it was set to do this every year, we will not be able to afford to cover our few workers at all. Due to compound interest, it will eb sky high well before ten years are up.
Small businesses need the public option, if not single payer.
July 30th, 2009 at 2:59 amconservative guy says:
Social Security and Medicare are going broke
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No they arent. You are a liar and a fool
July 30th, 2009 at 9:01 amGOP = means still living and thinking it is the 1960’s.
July 30th, 2009 at 10:43 amSocialism is NOT the problem THEY are and if we continue to allow them to use scare tactics then we have NO ONE to blame but ourselves.
seslisohbet ve seslichat goruntulu sohbet sitemize herkezi bekleriz.
July 30th, 2009 at 3:41 pmThank you..
Sesli Chat
Sesli Sohbet
Sesli Chat
Sesli Sohbet
St. Ronnie spent his sunset years drooling.
July 30th, 2009 at 4:30 pm