You've probably already heard or seen this video, where Pres. Obama basically admits that a public option will lead to the end of private insurance. I just wanted to post it on my blog so I would have it handy when I needed it.
There's also some other good quotes from Obama in this NRO Corner post.
Oh... BTW.... be sure to check out the comments in the thread two posts down. Amazing! Our friend David Appell thinks he is no better than a squirrel!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
40 comments:
David Appell is the kind of guy who watches "After People" on the history channel and masturbates.
Anon 8:23 -
Nice to see that "Character Counts" is still a core belief of Conservatives.
Still, it was funny.
Maybe back when I was 15. Masturbation jokes are just ummm... a little over done, don't you think?
However, I may be too harsh. For all I know, Anon 8:23 is 15.
R Hall must be in favor of single payer and be quite comfortable with the Obama public-option hoax.
That would account for jumping on the chance to 'adjust' the topic of this thread. Typical.
So, can R Hall or anyone who agrees with him explain why government takeovers should be sold to the public with bromides instead of with the facts about waste, fraud, abuse, costs and inefficiencies of government-only monopoly services v. services provided under competition?
This is not 1970 and the Era of Saul Alinsky. Folks are better informed now, and you cannot simply play by the old Rules for Radicals and expect to fool 51% of the folks every election.
You have over-reached and we are going to hold you to the rules that you play by. We have the internet and we're not afraid to use it.
I am in favor of single payer.
This article by Paul Krugman sums up pretty neatly how I feel.
The free market abandons millions who have no health care and little chance of getting it. How do we cover them? Or do we just say "too bad"?
Better? All is forgiven?
The free market abandons millions who have no health care
Dang! When did that happen?
Or are you confusing "health insurance" with "health care"?
You ever visited an ER, dude? Almost nobody there comes in by ambulance.
Max Redline's belief that ER visits substitute for health care reflects nothing but his ignorance, and the fact that he's never had tried it. Probably he is afraid to leave the security of a corporate existence and strike out on his own to do what he really enjoys.
There are many, many necessary health and medical services that a person might need that aren't available in an emergency room. Physical therapy is one of them. An ER will set your broken leg -- then what? Break some teeth? An ER might clean them out, but will not replace them. Need medical equipment, like say a special prosthesis or CPAP machine or diabetes syringes? You can't get them from trips to the ER. You can't get tests many take as routine, for one's heart or prostate or STDs or HPV or vaccinations or even routine blood pressure or cholesterol checks. Very little mental health care is available in an ER beyond the most rudimentary. It goes on and on.
Most of all you can't get medication beyond what's needed for a few days. Many necessary medications, or perhaps just the most effective one, are hundreds of dollars a month, for a huge list of diseases suffered by hundreds of millions of Americans.
Even if you are treated in an ER, they will send you a bill (one far larger than that given to patients with health insurance policies) and hound you to pay it. If you do not, your credit rating will be affected.
Max's statement is absolutely wrong. And arrogant.
Actually, I meant both Max.
Read David's post for the difficulties of health care by ER.
Sorry, R Hall et al, but 'bat-crapping commenters like "One Bad" do not actually 'post' here. Maybe they 'post' on their own blogs but, believe me, nobody goes to common 'bat blogs on purpose. Quark Soup!
Now back to examining the wisdom of giving in to the federal government takeover our health care.
Anon 9:53
What are you talking about? One Bad?
David Appell is a notorious 'bat-crapper who is known around these parts as "One Bad" ... I think the moniker refers to "one bad apple spoils the barrel" but it could refer to the 1970 hit by The Osmonds.
Living in a rural county, I actually know most of the people who live here, either directly or through reputation.
This mythology that is advocated as fact is useful for those who live unexamined lives. Afpel signs in with his signature attack. "Here's what I believe, and I really, really, really believe it!" And we are to leave the room in obeisance, bowing to the heartfelt beliefs of his rule.
But Afpel has few friends in either medicine or dentistry. No one has ever been turned away for treatment or care by any of the doctors or dentists in this county because of their inability to pay. And I'm not talking emergency room procedures. I'm talking office calls for corrective treatments and care.
If you have a friend who is either or doctor or a dentist, ask them whether or not the statement I've made above is true or untrue. You do not need to rely upon the beliefs of Afpel.
You can do more. You can find out for yourself.
.
Actually, David, I've been into the ER on a few occasions. I've always been impressed by the numbers of people there who don't have broken limbs or digits, but may be running a fever.
Quite frankly, your post reflects not only your arrogance and your general level of ignorance when it comes to health care in the USA, it illustrates your inexperience.
I don't care what you believe, because those beliefs have no basis in real-world experience, and are therefore completely irrelevant. As OG clearly demonstrates, health care is available. Don't talk to me about diabetes syringes - have you ever priced them? They're dirt-cheap.
You obviously are clueless; merely parroting back the talking-points you've memorized. Much as you've done in the recent past with your man-made global warming hysteria.
OregonGuy:
And maybe that is the difference - it is easier to get health care in rural areas where people, as you put it, know each other "directly or through reputation."
The experience in urban areas is probably very different. The daughter of a friend, who is unemployed, had pain to the lower back and radiating around to the sides. They couldn't get a quick diagnosis after tests, and she was given the number of a clinic she could call for follow up. From there she was given 3 referals to different clinics. One of them saw her once, and when she called, referred her to a different clinic. That clinic could not see her. When she tried to call the first clinic, she left messages. They were never returned. She still has the pain intermittantly, and there is not much she can do about it.
Max:
And can you tell how many of those people in the ER have insurance, and how many don't? And do you know what the follow up is? If a patient has a herniated disc, with pain in the elbow to the fingers (but no insurance) what are the chances that they will get the surgery necessary to fix that? It's a simple procedure. Instead, I'm willing to bet they are given a prescription for pain pills and sent on their way.
The only reason that hospitals never turn people away is because they are required by law to help people who show up in the ER.
If you don't have insurance, you are still billed. Perhaps some of the cost is defrayed, but not all. If you don't make payments, your wages can be garnished. Many people who don't have insurance, work in lower paying jobs and can't afford to have any of their wages taken away. Make 3 or 4 ER visits, and you will end up owing quite a bit.
Health care by ER rarely results in attempts to resolve the issues underlying chronic health problems.
R -
Now that's just silly. Did you expect me to take a poll while awaiting emergency services? I just see what I see.
As OG notes, you aren't turned away from doctors nor from dentists for lack of funds. Moreover, in urban areas such as Portland, health services are available to the homeless and low-income at low to zero cost - it's usually decided on the basis of a sliding scale.
Every time you folks are presented with facts, you keep on claiming that it isn't so. Whether or not you like inconvenient facts is irrelevant. I don't really care whether or not they conflict with your beliefs; your beliefs don't trump fact.
Rob--
Mebbe you know that "Dave" is a concerned scientist who cares about defending the IPCC reports.
Funny then,this link:
http://tinyurl.com/lndon5
Scroll down to the list of signers. We now have our own "Appel". Use whenever the impulse arises.
.
One Good!
One Good what? One good apple does not re-make a spoiled barrel. The Osmonds did not score a hit with One Good Apple.
Nah. One Bad.
His photo is: here.
Max:
The ability to actually get in and see someone at a clinic is limited. Those services get a lot of use. I'll let you figure out why. Sorry if I don't accept what you tell me at face value, and I'm even more sorry if my actual, real world, example doesn't fit your "facts".
The issue isn't immediate, emergency care, the other important issue is addressing the chronic conditions that result in visits to the ER. I do not, for one minute, believe that private doctors could take up the slack of all the uninsured people that need help without adversely affecting their paying patients. However, if you wish to present facts to the contrary, I'm willing to listen. If what you say is true, that all the uninsured have to do is walk into any doctor's office, we're dealing with a lack of publicity, not a lack of access. Another question: would that be once, or for continuing care? (You can thank Federal regulations for requiring hospital ERs to treat emergency cases - before 1986 they weren't required to, and they frequently didn't).
As states cut services to the poor can private doctors and hospitals take up the slack? How will free market forces provide those people with adequate health care?
Well, gee.. I guess if we're just making random hospital observations - I noticed last time I was at the hospital, there were a lot of people in the waiting room. Just telling ya what I noticed.
"Charitable physicians and the safety net of community clinics and public hospitals do not substitute for health insurance.
Lack of coverage clearly matters for the millions of uninsured Americans—affecting job decisions, financial security, access to care, and health status"
Kaiser Family Foundation
So, Max, lets see your facts. Or are they just generalities that you believe to be true?
Also from the Kaiser Family Foundation
"Most uninsured people have nowhere to obtain primary care but the ED. Few private practices accept uninsured patients and sliding fee clinics are backed up."
R,
The ability to actually get in and see someone at a clinic is limited. Those services get a lot of use.
So, if somebody has to wait to gain time with a PA or other medical personnel at a free clinic, that's a problem. I can understand that.
So your solution is to make everybody wait for months, thanks to government-run 'universal health care".
Well, hey, that's only fair.
BTW, R,
It's rather odd that you cite Kaiser as a factual source. They claim that 41 million Americans can't afford health insurance, but neglect to mention that many of them can but choose not to purchase insurance. If you're young and in good health, as many of them are, why would you do that? It's their call. It shouldn't be yours.
So because some can, but won't, purchase insurance, everyone else gets penalized?
As for months.. depends upon what is wrong. The waiting for clinics includes things that people shouldn't wait for. Not all ailments are the same. But, if you have to, waiting is better than never getting it, yes?
What is your solution for the millions that want insurance, but can't get it?
I'd also love to see some of your sources. Where do you get your "facts" from?
Boys, boys, boys!
Quit your bickering.
Both of you would be surprised at how many people without help don't have help because they don't ask.
That's right.
People don't get the care they need because they don't ask for it. It's not a pride thing. There are an amazing number of parents who have children that don't know that they can use communication skillz to achieve their goal; surmounting the problem at hand.
I know that we're constantly given the number that twelve brazillian people don't have health insurance. But even under a single-payer system, a lot of those brazillians won't know that they and their children will be covered. It won't be until a wagon shows up on their front porch to pull out the bodies that a certain portion of the population will become aware of the fact that there exists an entire infrastructure of care that had been waiting for the pre-deceased bodies.
Sure, it makes great headlines. But these headlines will continue to exist well after we are shackled to the cure; single-payer.
Now, saying this and getting you to admit it are two separate things. Granted. If you're pushing for a system that magically fixes the inadequacies of people to care for themselves while impoverishing those who do, it would hardly be cricket to hold oneself to task for this failure to see that the cure is more painful than the disease.
But, when you're breaking the back of an economy, being on the side of angels is more important than thinking things through.
So, for those of you who can't see the worst of single-payer, a pox on your house. And then, for those of you who do see the worst of single-payer, you're about to receive a pox on your house.
And that, my friends, is what social justice is all about.
.
You really have a knack for setting up your straw men and then knocking the crap out of them. I tip my hat to you.
Pretty words Oregon Guy. But unfortunately nothing much more than that.
So because some can, but won't, purchase insurance, everyone else gets penalized?
Let's rephrase the question, so that it's in proper perspective:
Because most people have health insurance in America, and because most people are satisfied with their coverage, should we penalize them in order to ensure that a minority receives coverage?
That's really what you're supporting, R.
It's telling that when OG makes a cogent argument, you have no response.
Now, where do I get my facts? Oh, from little places like Rasmussen, and from physicians. For example, in Houston: Physicians jammed a town hall meeting in The Woodlands on Thursday, expressing fears about the cost and effectiveness of a health care reform bill that could come up for a vote in Congress as early as September.
“The bottom line is that doctors don't want socialized medicine — another flawed health care system like Medicare. They don't believe it will lower the costs or improve quality,” Brady said. “Medicare is already going bankrupt and not quality care. It also shifts medical costs onto other paying customers. It needs to be fixed first.”
Call me crazy, R, but I tend to trust doctors more than I trust politicians or other organizations.
> Because most people have
> health insurance in America, and
> because most people are satisfied
> with their coverage, should we
> penalize them in order to ensure
> that a minority receives coverage?
Health insurance costs are currently increasing at about 2-3 times the rate of inflation, and worker's wages have remained flat, inflation adjusted, for about 30 years now.
And, in reaction, employers are dropping health insurance. I believe the rate at which employers are insuring workers has dropped from about 65% to about 59% in the last 10 years.
This trend shows absolutely no sign of stopping.
I wonder what you will say when *your* employer drops insurance, because it is too expensive to maintain.
Also, let's note that the government already pays for about 46% of US health costs, mostly for Medicare and the VA. And about half the people on Medicare don't even know the govt is paying their bills, as Krugman showed today on his blog.
Actually, David, most employers are increasing the amounts that employees have to contribute to maintain health insurance. Also, Let's note that Medicare and Medicaid are broke.
They're already paying out more than they take in. Let's also note that the government isn't paying for any of it - we are.
Let's further agree to stop using silly euphimisms like "the government" when we talk about who's paying the bills, okay?
And if you want to yak about health care, don't forget this:
While often claiming that they can't afford traditional health care or insurance, Americans nonetheless dropped $34 billion on "alternative" health care in 2007, the most recent year for which figures are available. Some 43.7% of those dollars were spent on products like fish oil, glucosamine and echinacea - despite the fact that studies have disproven the effectiveness of many such products.
By the way, have you ever heard of AHIP? Be honest. Don't try Googling and claiming you knew all about it - if you had until I mentioned it, you'd have mentioned it sooner. Nope: it's all news to you.
Max... LOL.. OG doesn't have a cogent argument, and I see nothing backed up by any facts or studies. His argument boils down to: some people can afford insurance, but don't want it, therefore there is no problem and expanding health insurance is a bad idea. I'm hoping you can see the logical problems with that, but if that is your definition of cogent, you go for it.
I usually trust doctors when they tell me what is wrong with me. I don't assume that they are also experts at public policy and health care; most of them do not study that particular specialty. So, no, when doctors complain about socialized medicine I do not immediately think "damn, they are doctors they must know what they are talking about. Other than doctor's being upset, what facts did the present? Do THEY have a plan on how to deliver health care to the millions who don't have insurance? I think this comment says it all: “I am very concerned about what this will cost us in terms of dollars,” said Dr. William Parker, the chief medical officer where the meeting was held. “ Not, "I'm worried about people who do not have insurance gaining consistent access to health care." Not, "I'm worried about Emergency Rooms being flooded by people with no health insurance because they have no where to go." Not, "This trend of employers no longer covering their employees worries me." No, it's all about the money. And I think, in a nutshell, that is the primary concern of physicians who oppose "socialized" medicine.
Not that the funding isn't hugely important. Obviously it is. However, that seems to be as far as Conservatives will take it: "too expensive, what can ya do? Guess we'll just have to give up. Oh well, too bad, sucks to not have insurance." For starters, lets stop fighting wars in other countries. There are billions of dollars to be had there.
And, why is it the the United States spends a much larger proportion of their GDP on health care than any other industrial nation? You know, like Sweden, France, Germany, the United Kingdom? Countries with single-payer systems?
As for trusting doctors more than "organizations", I assume you're referring to the Kaiser Family Foundation - which, ya know, actually STUDIES the issues. So, I guess we'll just have to disagree on who is more knowledgeable about public policy and health care. An organization dedicated to studying health care delivery to the poor or doctors concerned about their pocket books.
Rasmussen doesn't study health care. They study public opinion. If you're getting your facts from Rasmussen about problems faced by the uninsured, I truly pity you.
So, essentially, you're getting your facts from an public opinion research company and doctors who operate off of their "fears" about how much the program will cost. Oh, yeah, and the quality of the care as well. As if the uninsured have any quality of care to lose.
So, if single-payer is so bad, how come the infant mortality rate is lower in all industrialized nations that cover their citizens? How come the life expectancy is higher? When you look at a single-payer system like Sweden, France, or Germany (to name three) how can you tell that the quality of their care is below ours? What makes you believe that the majority of their citizens are ill-served by a single-payer system?
Max wrote: "While often claiming that they can't afford traditional health care or insurance, Americans nonetheless dropped $34 billion on "alternative" health care in 2007, the most recent year for which figures are available. Some 43.7% of those dollars were spent on products like fish oil, glucosamine and echinacea - despite the fact that studies have disproven the effectiveness of many such products."
And what conclusions do you draw from that statement? Or is that just another random fact you've decided to just throw out there?
Are the people who can't afford health insurance the exact same ones who are buying alternative medicines? If they are, is it possible they are buying alternative medicines because they are much cheaper? Because they can't get in to see a doctor, they are trying something, anything, to try and get better?
LOL, R -
I don't assume that they are also experts at public policy and health care; most of them do not study that particular specialty
And you, of course, have. Well then let us all learn from you, oh expert. Tell us all about the AHIP plan, and why it should be ignored. Grace us all great unwashed with your vast knowledge. Please, fill us all in on why the AHIP plan was bad, and why we should instead turn to a government-run "plan".
Regale us all with tales of great government-run success stories. Medicare. So-so security. Medicaid. VA. Keep 'em coming, R, keep 'em coming.
Give us some examples of really cool government programs, so we can all rally around your flag.
(chirp, chirp...)
Nope I haven't Max - which is why I post studies from organizations like the KFF.
Guess what. Drove by the hospital the other day, LOTS of cars in the parking lot. LOL
Max R. ...
One of the reasons Medicare (and social security, too, for that matter) is in some financial trouble is that it has been wildly successful. Life expectancy in 1965 was less than 70 years of age; now it's over 83.
Thus, when Medicare began, people weren't around long enough to receive much in benefits. Greater income security and the ability to receive proactive, as well as reactive, care, has enabled the elderly to live both longer and better.
If you want to debate logically, you will have a hard time arguing that Medicare hasn't had a significant impact on not only prolonging life for seniors, but in improving the quality of life.
As for myself, Rob, I hope you're right that a strong, popular public option will lead to a single-payer system. However, I'm dubious about this happening.
My preference would be to establish a "mirror-image" Medicare program for those under 30. It would include vision, dental, and mental health care. There would, of course, be a private, supplemental insurance program just as exists with Medicare. The effect of this would be to ensure a good start for young people, including, for many, their childbearing years. I suspect that, once involved with such a program, that these people would want to retain the "health care they already (would) have," just as so many say they want now. This would provide a smooth transition to a single-payer system.
Rural,
Medicare and so-so security aren't "in some financial trouble". They're broke. They're broke because they're government-run.
If you want to argue logically, you will have a hard time demonstrating one instance in which research and treatment emanating from the government-run system have resulted in extension of life expectancy. The reason is because while most drugs and therapies come from America, their source is private-sector.
R - Look into AHIP's plan sometime, and explain why Obamacare is better. And of course, feel free to rise to the challenge mentioned earlier: Regale us all with tales of great government-run success stories. Medicare. So-so security. Medicaid. VA. Keep 'em coming, R, keep 'em coming.
Give us some examples of really cool government programs, so we can all rally around your flag.
I'm perfectly willing to look at alternatives, but I've looked at Obamacare, and I'm really unimpressed. Give me some success stories; if you love government-run health insurance, you must have many examples of how government has out-performed the private sector.
MAX Redline said...
> Actually, David, most employers are > increasing the amounts that
> employees have to contribute to
> maintain health insurance.
Max, thank you for making my point.
PS: It's also beyond doubt that some employers are also dropping health insurance altogether.
MAX Redline said...
> Actually, David, most employers are > increasing the amounts that
> employees have to contribute to
> maintain health insurance.
See Max, this exactly demonstrates my point, and you are so ideologically blind you don't even realize it.'
What you are saying (do you even realize?) is that employees now pay for something that was previously paid for by their employer. In other words, their/your net take-home pay is decreasing.
Are you happy about that situation? Is it sustainable?
David,
I have no problem with paying for health insurance. I'm not required to pay; I can take it or leave it.
Given a choice between free decision or government mandate, I go with freedom.
Do you like government mandates? Is that sustainable?
Medicare.
Post a Comment