Bringing Trig Palin into the Health Care Debate
The other day Sarah Palin made one of the more crazy and offensive claims yet by opponents of health care reform. She said:
Palin warns that the people who "will suffer the most" when the government "rations care" are the "the sick, the elderly, and the disabled." The exact opposite is true. It is the private insurance industry, not the government, that excludes the sick, the elderly, and the disabled. Insurance companies are in the business of making money, and it makes no economic sense for them to cover people who are likely to incur enormous health care costs over their lifetimes. Good luck trying to purchase private health insurance if you're old, sick, or disabled.
Indeed, it is for exactly this reason that most every other country long ago gravitated toward a universal system. The alternative is a world in which people like Trig (and their parents) are punished because of their bad luck, a world in which the elderly are priced out of the system, and a world in which those who need insurance the most are unable to purchase it. Medicare wasn't just passed as some sort of grand social experiment. It was passed in response to a dire social need, i.e., a situation in which most elderly Americans could not afford to see a doctor.
The reality is that kids like Trig Palin make just about the most compelling case possible for health care reform. Through no fault of his own, Trig will likely have very large medical bills over his lifetime. He is lucky that he was born to a family of means who also happened to have good government insurance when he was born. But many other children with Down Syndrome are born into families without insurance or families who must, from that moment forward, worry constantly about what will happen to their child if they lose their insurance (because of a changed or lost job). In his post, Publius links to stories of mothers who want to quit their jobs to help take care of special needs children but know that if they do so, they won't be able to find insurance for them. That's heart-breaking. And it is the inevitable result of a system in which most people must rely on the private market and have no public insurance option. Nothing would do more to improve the lives of people with Down Syndrome and their families then to pass health care reform.
The Democrats promise that a government health care system will reduce the cost of health care, but as the economist Thomas Sowell has pointed out, government health care will not reduce the cost; it will simply refuse to pay the cost. And who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's "death panel" so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their "level of productivity in society," whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.There is so much crazy here that it's hard to know where to begin, but Publius hits the most obvious point:
Palin is sort of right on one point -- there are people who weigh whether children like Trig are worthy of insurance. They're called insurance companies, and they have decided that these children are not in fact worthy of coverage. That's because Down Syndrome is a "pre-existing condition."He then links to a number of sources talking about how impossible it is to purchase insurance for children (or adults) with Down Syndrome. Indeed, one of the primary legislative goals of the National Down Syndrome Congress is health care reform. If you look at their website, you can see their policy goals track almost exactly with the kind of health care reform currently being proposed.
Palin warns that the people who "will suffer the most" when the government "rations care" are the "the sick, the elderly, and the disabled." The exact opposite is true. It is the private insurance industry, not the government, that excludes the sick, the elderly, and the disabled. Insurance companies are in the business of making money, and it makes no economic sense for them to cover people who are likely to incur enormous health care costs over their lifetimes. Good luck trying to purchase private health insurance if you're old, sick, or disabled.
Indeed, it is for exactly this reason that most every other country long ago gravitated toward a universal system. The alternative is a world in which people like Trig (and their parents) are punished because of their bad luck, a world in which the elderly are priced out of the system, and a world in which those who need insurance the most are unable to purchase it. Medicare wasn't just passed as some sort of grand social experiment. It was passed in response to a dire social need, i.e., a situation in which most elderly Americans could not afford to see a doctor.
The reality is that kids like Trig Palin make just about the most compelling case possible for health care reform. Through no fault of his own, Trig will likely have very large medical bills over his lifetime. He is lucky that he was born to a family of means who also happened to have good government insurance when he was born. But many other children with Down Syndrome are born into families without insurance or families who must, from that moment forward, worry constantly about what will happen to their child if they lose their insurance (because of a changed or lost job). In his post, Publius links to stories of mothers who want to quit their jobs to help take care of special needs children but know that if they do so, they won't be able to find insurance for them. That's heart-breaking. And it is the inevitable result of a system in which most people must rely on the private market and have no public insurance option. Nothing would do more to improve the lives of people with Down Syndrome and their families then to pass health care reform.
posted by A.L. at 8:22 AM
67 Comments:
Isn't it truly amazing how everything that comes out of Sarah Palin's mouth turns out to be the exact opposite of the truth? There's a certain skill in being able to be 180 degrees wrong on everything you say that while not admirable is impressive in a fashion.
He then links to a number of sources talking about how impossible it is to purchase insurance for children (or adults) with Down Syndrome.
I'm guessing that this is untrue. People who get their health insurance via their employers, which is a huge majority of the country, will find their children covered, even if the children have Down Syndrome. I'm guessing Trig Palin is covered under the current system.
The exact opposite is true. It is the private insurance industry, not the government, that excludes the sick, the elderly, and the disabled. Insurance companies are in the business of making money, and it makes no economic sense for them to cover people who are likely to incur enormous health care costs over their lifetimes.
Again, the majority of Americans get their insurance through their employers. When I got married a few years ago, she was covered despite having had a heart attack prior to our marriage. Most people who get their health insurance in this manner find their new family members covered.
Good luck trying to purchase private health insurance if you're old, sick, or disabled.
A non sequiter. You don't even have private health insurance; you're employer provides it as a cost-free benefit to you (you had mentioned this before).
You say the government will be better at protecting the elderly and the sick than the private sector. But you don't back it up with anything indicating that this is true. You talk about people having trouble buying private health insurance due to the medical issues of the people and their families, except that the vast majority of people don't buy private policies (which is another issue in and of itself).
You know what would be fair? If the administration and Congressional Democrats are so hip on setting up a public option, then have it be the one they are on.
One other thing. Maybe Palin's objections have something to do with Obama's Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel's brother, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, being part of the OMB. In 1996, he wrote the following:
This civic republican or deliberative democratic conception of the good provides both procedural and substantive insights for developing a just allocation of health care resources. Procedurally, it suggests the need for public forums to deliberate about which health services should be considered basic and should be socially guaranteed. Substantively, it suggests services that promote the continuation of the polity-those that ensure healthy future generations, ensure development of practical reasoning skills, and ensure full and active participation by citizens in public deliberations-are to be socially guaranteed as basic. Conversely, services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.
Then, this past year, he (and others) wrote this:
Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years. Treating 65-year-olds differently because of stereotypes or falsehoods would be ageist; treating them differently because they have already had more life-years is not.
Maybe Dr. Emanuel should read a little document called the U.S. Constitution, because the things Emanuel wrote would be unconstitutional (not to mention monstrous) if implemented as policy.
Steve, as usual you are missing the point. Yes, if you have health insurance and you have a child, that child will be covered. The problem comes when you lose your job or switch to a new job (thereby changing insurance). At that point, insurance will deny coverage of pre-existing conditions. So people who have Downs kids are forced to do whatever it takes (i.e., never change jobs or quit) in order to keep their coverage. Also, Downs kids who live into their 20s (and thereby drop off their parents coverage) have an almost impossible time getting coverage.
The interesting thing about the views of people like Steve is his total lack of feeling for those who are not employed or work on the margins with the employers offering no health benefits. This group grows daily and yet the Steves don't give a rat's ass about them. Steve just ignores the logic- private health insurance companies are in the business for one reason, profit and kids with pre-existing conditions just don't allow for maximum profit. How can they argue that fact?
A.L.,
In the post, you contend that insurance companies currently ration health care and that this is bad. They won't cover people with pre-existing conditions when those people change jobs (which isn't true in all cases; I have first-hand knowledge of this) or lose jobs.
What you fail to mention regularly is that in a country with a public option where the government pays all the bills (and that is where Obama and the Dems are heading), they will be forced to ration care in order to cut costs as is done in many countries with this type of system, especially Britain and Canada. So instead of insurance companies denying coverage, the government will do it. And when there is only a public option, there won't be any other alternatives. This isn't reform, and would be, in fact, quite unconstitutional. This is what Palin was railing against, and it wasn't crazy, especially when you add in the past statements of someone who is currently involved with assisting in the formation of the government's policy on health care (and who happens to be the brother of the Chief of Staff; how convenient).
Again, a fair way to handle the public option is to have Americans sign up for that which the administration and Congress has.
Of course, Sarah Palin recently left her government job, so one would think that would mean her insurance would lapse, unless she gets her own private insurance. That would be interesting to know.
And Steve, until you understand the difference between government-run healthcare systems (Britain and Canada) and single-payer insurance healthcare systems (France, Medicare), you should refrain from showing your ignorance.
In reality, there isn't and won't ever be rationing of care in the US. If you want a certain treatment, you'll always be able to buy it yourself.
And lastly, we already have a single-payer public option for those over 65: Medicare. And it's wildly popular, last I checked.
rashomon:
In reality, there isn't and won't ever be rationing of care in the US. If you want a certain treatment, you'll always be able to buy it yourself.
But that is what the left is always complaining about, that too many can't afford it, so they want the government to take over paying for it. Except they don't even say that since their argument is that health care costs must be contained. How can both occur? And if the government is going to do this, how in the world are they going to do this efficiently when they can't do anything efficiently?
And lastly, we already have a single-payer public option for those over 65: Medicare. And it's wildly popular, last I checked.
The last I checked, the Dems want to cut this as well. Plus, it's unsustainable.
The last I checked, the Dems want to cut this as well. Plus, it's unsustainable.
It's completely sustainable and all you have to do is look at how the Mayo Clinic is run to see how it SHOULD be done.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_gawande?currentPage=1#
Being the good right wing parrot Steve naturally brings up someone that has NOTHING to do with the bills in the senate or the house. Hell Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel doesn't even work for Obama..
The fact is Steve the insurance companies are already rationing health care as is hence my GF's inability to get insurance due to a "prior condition" aka having ITP when she was a teenager (which has been gone for many years).
But that is what the left is always complaining about, that too many can't afford it, so they want the government to take over paying for it. Except they don't even say that since their argument is that health care costs must be contained. How can both occur? And if the government is going to do this, how in the world are they going to do this efficiently when they can't do anything efficiently?
AH the old conservative argument that the government can't do anything right thus it must be shrunk asap. It's the person in charge that matters not if something is ran by the government or the private sector (USPS/Libraries/etc)..
The comment by Palin was almost certainly co-written. On her Facebook page, the term "death panel" was in quotes, which allows for some deniability; the "standing in front of" element is a melodramatic touch that's not Palin's style; other elements of her statement have an Investors Business Daily-like construction.
"This group grows daily and yet the Steves don't give a rat's ass about them."
"you should refrain from showing your ignorance."
"Being the good right wing parrot.."
regarding the comments above: While I disagree vehemetly with Steve, I think you guys would do yourselves a favor by not resulting to ad hominem-style attacks when refuting his points. As a person who considers himself liberal, I pride myself on elevating my political discourse above the RNC hate-machine that uses character-assassination and mud-slinging to win elections rather than policy substance. Make sure you attack the argument, not the person.
Steve: Rationing of care in Canada and Britain is exaggerrated because the system is not fully understood. Private clinics are available in both Britain and Canada for individuals who feel their wait times are untenable. Supplemental private insurance is also available for Canadian and British citizens, and most people do purchase additional private protection because healthcare is not technically "free" in Canada or Britain. The government simply insures the public rather than private entities like here in the U.S.
the stories of people dying due to wait times are a bit dishonest: urgent cases are expedited. I've seen plenty of testimonials from Canadian nationals that say that they've received timely care for a number of conditions in the Canadian system. If you want a good example of one, Check out william bates on youtube, a retired marine who lives in Canada, and says he is satisfied with the care he's received:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuVviiFXOC4
I think one of the reasons that conservatives tend to view the government as "the enemy" here is because they place alot of their faith in the free market. The problem is that there are certain areas of the economy where the profit-motive works against consumers rather than for them. Healthcare is one of these areas, and it is the reason why even countries like Taiwan and Japan, who have impeccable Capitalist credentials, socialized their healthcare systems long ago. We have already taken the step of guaranteeing hospital treatment to those who cannot pay, so we already pay the cost of treating the uninsured. The point now becomes one of asking a question: is there a less costly way to treat these people? The fact that Americans now pay, according to the CMA, almost double what Canadians pay for their healthcare should end that particular facet of the debate. The fact of the matter is that when it comes to healthcare, the free market has actually increased costs because we are subsidizing profit as well as the cost of providing the care. The way we provide healthcare to the uninsured now is proving to increase costs by forcing hospitals to treat those who cannot pay, and then logging the charges to the public coffers. I think Conservative Blogger Andrew Sullivan articulated the point nicely:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/08/conservatism-and-healthcare.html
"If you have guaranteed emergency room care for the uninsured at public expense, you have already effectively socialized medicine. It makes no sense not to bring these people into the insurance system, and to offer less expensive, long-term preventive healthcare. To insist that ideology stand in the way of this piece of compassionate common sense is irresponsible."
Also, on the matter of whether the government can provide quality healthcare, consider the reaction of The Weekly Standard's William Kristol when Jon Stewart caught him in a logic trap:
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2009/08/why_conservative_pundits_love.html
"I feel like you just trapped me," a grinning Kristol told Stewart, after Kristol conceded that the government provides "first-rate" health care to American soldiers. "I just want to get this on the record," said Stewart. "You just said ... the government can run a first-class health-care system.""
Can I be honest with you Steve? I actually don't like the plan that's before Congress right now. I think we should abolish Medicare/Medicaid and replace it with a Medical Insurance Payroll Tax that insures everybody up to a certain percentage and completely covers catastrophic care costs, with a reasonable hospital co-pay. My insurance currently has a $500 hospital in-patient co-pay. We can keep this facet in a public system. Again, we are not trying to provide free care, but insure the public at-cost without having to make a profit in order to lower costs. It's silly to imply that gov't. provided health insurance will increase costs because every country in the world pays less per capital for their healthcare than we do. And in many cases, this allows them to afford purchasing additional private coverage so they don't have to pay the full cost of attending private clinics if they feel their wait times are unreasonable. This also takes the burden of paying for healthcare off of businesses, freeing them of another administrative cost, and allowing them to pay their workers a better wage.
Matt:
It's completely sustainable and all you have to do is look at how the Mayo Clinic is run to see how it SHOULD be done.
Medicare doesn't handle money like the Mayo clinic. Which is why Medicare is unsustainable.
Hell Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel doesn't even work for Obama..
Wrong. Emanuel works as a special advisor to the OMB.
Matt:
It's the person in charge that matters not if something is ran by the government or the private sector
Bull. The only way the government can do what a President wants is if the President serves longer than 8 years and doesn't have a Congress (or the people) to hold up the President's progress. After that, most of the Executive Branch changes; not only in personnel, but governing philosophy.
Additionally, bureaucracies are notorious for being out of date in their practices, usually by decades. To get that changed requires a Congress that is actually on top of what an administration is doing. Unfortunately, and it doesn't matter what party has control of Congress, members are more interested in getting re-elected and lining their pockets than in governing.
Steve, if the point you're trying to make were true, then Medicare would be pretty awful, right?
...And so its customer-satisfaction rate would be pretty low, right?
Eudaemonic,
It's how to pay for it when there are too many people covered by it and not enough workers paying into it.
SteveAR: You keep dancing around the counter-argument that many countries with socialized medicine keep costs dramatically lower than the US while maintaining equal (Canada) or higher (the U.K., Israel) levels of public satisfaction and measurable means of health. Even your claims of un-sustainability are disproven right here in the US, where private health-care premiums are rising faster than those of Medicare/Medicaid. Obviously socialized medicine can be done well, so let's not throw the baby out with the bath-water.
As to the argument at hand, rashomon has already pointed out to you that Palin-style rationing of care will never happen because you will always have the option to pay for care out of pocket. And while "the left" is proposing a way to minimize having to do this, the option will still be there. In fact, the only way to prevent the kind of rationing Palin is describing would be to enact universal coverage ... I'm reminded of the old joke - "The food here is so terrible, and the portions so small".
Now, the current plan may actually be unsustainable, but rather than argue that fact on it's merits you're parroting Bircher nonsense about something Rham's brother published with three other authors in an academic paper discussing what to do in the case of an emergency and scarce resources...
Shorter Steve:
"The current system works great for the people it works great for, so why change it?"
Even shorter SteveAR: "I'm guessing..."
None of you seem to have had a great health insurance policy and then gotten an expensive disease. I have. My insurance simply stopped paying. No reason or nonsense reasons. This happens. Insurance companies do not think they have to give any money back and hire monkeys to work up denial EOBs.
SteveAR: But that is what the left is always complaining about, that too many can't afford it, so they want the government to take over paying for it. Except they don't even say that since their argument is that health care costs must be contained. How can both occur?
No, that's not "the left"'s argument. The goal of many of us is to make sure that everyone has at least some minimal standard of access to medical care. If people of means want to buy supplemental insurance--which, as others have pointed out, is done in other systems such as Canada and Britain--fine and dandy. Just because some of us want everyone to have the ability to live in a basic home doesn't mean we think everyone should live on Fifth Avenue in New York.
And when there is only a public option, there won't be any other alternatives. This isn't reform, and would be, in fact, quite unconstitutional.
Again, counterexamples from other nations show this assertion is wrong. My understanding is that there are several European systems where private and public plans exist and compete side by side.
And I don't know what provision of the Constitution you're referring to.
Medicare doesn't handle money like the Mayo clinic. Which is why Medicare is unsustainable.
But it could be more like Mayo. Incentives could be put in place to do so. Massachusetts may be making moves to get away from the fee for service model and towards something closer to the Mayo model. Obama has extolled the May/Cleveland Clinic model too.
And if the government is going to do this, how in the world are they going to do this efficiently when they can't do anything efficiently?
Not only is Medicare run pretty efficiently, but the VA system is run well too, from what I've heard.
And I wouldn't hold up US private medical insurance as a model of efficiency. Their overhead costs are tremendous.
Facts should matter, shouldn't they?
Great Article!!! I was very happy to ready it all. thanks for the info. from http://www.insiderater.com
There are numerous problems with the present bill that is looking to bring 1/7 of the economy into the Governments domain.
For starters, I can’t believe the liberals in this chat are satisfied with giving Big Brother unfettered access to their bank accounts. Regardless how you feel about the medical provisions of the plan, just take a moment to think about how some Gov’t official could abuse that system. Think of any? Maybe checking to see how much money is flowing through your personal account on any given day. Liberals were up in arms that America was trying to protect itself with the Patriot Act that permitted limited access to having a phone conversation tapped. But, you will give the Gov’t unlimited access to your bank account?
How will you feel when BHO loses in 2012 to the GOP Sarah Palin and then the GOP is in control of monitoring your bank account.
And that is without even discussing the merits of this socialist medical plan!
Let that sink in and then Steve and I will make you feel little an many more levels.
Regards,
John Ft. Lauderdale
trizzlor:
You keep dancing around the counter-argument that many countries with socialized medicine keep costs dramatically lower than the US while maintaining equal (Canada) or higher (the U.K., Israel) levels of public satisfaction and measurable means of health.
How timely your comment is, especially as it relates to the U.K.:
Elderly left at risk by NHS bidding wars to find cheapest care with reverse auctions
Patients forced to live in agony after NHS refuses to pay for painkilling injections
Elderly suffer in care shambles
Twisted priorities that let the elderly suffer
NHS neglects elderly depression.
NHS failure on Down's screening kills healthy babies
'I said to the nurse, please feed her'
Dominic Lawson: Shame on the doctors prejudiced against Down Syndrome
And this is just a miniscule smattering of stories; there are hundreds of these out there. Tell me again how this is a higher level of health care, because I don't believe you one little bit.
As to the argument at hand, rashomon has already pointed out to you that Palin-style rationing of care will never happen because you will always have the option to pay for care out of pocket.
Sure, if you can afford it. I thought one of the left's arguments was that the biggest reason for bankruptcies was due to excessive health care costs. You are advocating expanding bankruptcies, correct? This is reform? As far as universal (government-only) health care, read the articles I linked to again.
Now, the current plan may actually be unsustainable, but rather than argue that fact on it's merits you're parroting Bircher nonsense about something Rham's brother published with three other authors in an academic paper discussing what to do in the case of an emergency and scarce resources...
And now Rahm's brother is in the administration, which means he can influence the government to turn his academic paper into policy. Whether it happens or not, I can't say. But I am talking about the corrupt Chicago Way*, something Obama and the Emanuel brothers are very familiar with.
*BTW, before moving to Arkansas four months ago, I lived in Illinois, so I know what I'm talking about.
You know what is missing in this discussion, Republicans can't stop any bill that Democrats put in; there aren't enough of them in Congress, especially with Specter moving over to become a Democrat in the Senate. As with Porkulus, a public option will be owned exclusively by the Democrats because the Democratic "leadership" in Congress and the administration don't want Republican input. These are the same Democrats, especially in the administration, that have cut a deal with the drug companies the left loves to demonize. Democrats are very afraid of owning this exclusively, and like cowards seek to blame Republicans for all this. It isn't working.
"You know what is missing in this discussion, Republicans can't stop any bill that Democrats put in; there aren't enough of them in Congress, especially with Specter moving over to become a Democrat in the Senate. As with Porkulus, a public option will be owned exclusively by the Democrats because the Democratic "leadership" in Congress and the administration don't want Republican input. These are the same Democrats, especially in the administration, that have cut a deal with the drug companies the left loves to demonize. Democrats are very afraid of owning this exclusively, and like cowards seek to blame Republicans for all this. It isn't working."
Nice! I think that is what really getts to the heart of the matter for the dems and libs. They have all the control and none of the power they so want.
ON the medical front:
**Buffet style policies -- Let me pick and choose what I want to cover. Such as maternity coverage -- I'm DONE!! Why should I pay for coverage I will not need?
**Health Reimbursement/Savings Accounts -- Over 40% of those with HSA's did not have coverage before. The dems/libs have fought them since they were started in 2003 because they are the perfect plan for young people that just want major medical at a low cost.
**Contain procedures by doctors -- Can't happen without tort reform. If you want to cut out the procedures, the doctors will become ever more specialized in order to cut down on law suit happy customers. BHO think we can pay based on if people get well, sounds good. The problem is that many surgeries will never take place because doctors won't want to take a risk of a "successful surgery, but the patient died" scenario. Happens. Many of the best hospitals take on the riskiest surgeries, try new techniques, but in the end the patient didn't survive.
Sorry -- the Gov't is in charge now. "No surgery for you!"
**Customer Tax Deduction! Private individuals should get the same income tax deduction as a corporation! I could join a group and NEVER have to worry about who my employer was, I could leave at will and not have to worry about my insurance coverage.
I know those common sense answers will be too much for liberals to accept, but please bring up educated replies if you can.
Regards,
John Ft. Lauderdale
Steve,
Please spare us the NHS strawman. No American politician is or has ever proposed doing anything like an NHS-like system, where the government actually employs the doctors and owns the hospitals.
What's bring proposed is a system where people (other than those over 65 who already have such option) have the option of buying public insurance. It would be a mild adjustment to the system we already have where a large percentage of people already have public insurance. If you're going to look at other countries, at least look at places like France or the Netherlands, where public and private insurance co-exist. The British system is a HUGE strawman, and you know it.
Can someone please point me in the direction of an argument from the right, that doesn't rely on the premise that the public option is the only option?
Frankie,
<< crickets >>
Personally, I live in Canada, have about 4 relatives who work in the Health sector as physicians of various backgrouds, and I can safely say that none of us would even consider trading our medical system with the US one, even with Obama's reform.
Even then, there are so many other aspects to consider, like the relative professional immunity from being sued (only in cases of proven incompetence), peace of mind of the general populace and companies as to never worry about coverage, etc, etc..
Sure, no system's perfect. It there was one, everybody would be using it. The gist of the matter is exactly what you want to pay for. Since medical need is unlimited, and ressource limited, by definition EVERY SINGLE SYSTEM on the planet is rationing care. The real question then is who makes the decision to give care to whom, and at what cost.
Just ponder the fact that the American system is 37th in the world for quality of care (http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html), 24th for life expectancy (http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthy_life_table2.html)
, and 2nd WORSE for spending (http://www.photius.com/rankings/total_health_expenditure_as_pecent_of_gdp_2000_to_2005.html), and you get the pretty picture that the United States have about one of the worst health care system in all the developped countries. There is much to be improved, much to be discussed, and much to be done.
A.L.:
Please spare us the NHS strawman.
Spare me your "nuance".
What's bring proposed is a system where people...have the option of buying public insurance.
Then how in the world is it going to control costs? That's right; some NHS-like bureaucracy, what you call a "strawman".
If you're going to look at other countries, at least look at places like France or the Netherlands, where public and private insurance co-exist.
You're the one with the huge strawman. Let's go to the videotape. Here is a lovely little video of Barack Obama, Jan Schakowski, and some hack professor named Hacker all pushing for a single-payer monstrosity, not some kind of public/private hybrid in France or the Netherlands. Here is Barney Frank. Both Frank and Obama admit that they have to lie to the American people about what has to be proposed in order to get there. In order to get there, they have to figure out how to control costs. Since the Democrats in this Congress aren't about to get into the business of responsible governing (being all tied up in figuring out how to win their next election), they will turn it over to some bureaucracy to figure out how to dole out health care like some NHS-like monstrosity. And this isn't just a smidgeon of Democrats in the federal government; this is what the vast majority of Democrats in Congress want. It's also what a majority of the American people don't want, as polls have increasingly shown.
As I said earlier, if the Democrats want a public option, there aren't enough Republicans to stop it. But for it to be fair, every single member of Congress and elected and appointed administration official should go on it to show the American people how good it is. But Democrats who have been asked the question about whether they would use the public option refuse to answer that question, with the exception of Rep. Tsongas (at least she admitted she wouldn't go to it, which was dumb).
Another fair idea would be to have the current system enjoyed by Congress and the administration become the public option. But we all know this won't happen, just as we know these same people won't sign up for the public option they will put on everyone else.
SteveAR, everytime I read misinformed nonsense about the Canadian healthcare system, it drives me nuts.
If you don't know anything about it, and clearly you don't, stop making shit up.
Here's my latest experience with our system:
About 3 weeks ago I broke my foot. I got to the hospital where I waited all of 10 minutes before I got to see an admin who took my OHIP card, asked me a couple questions (family dr., spouse etc). This process took about 10minutes.
I waited another 20 minutes before I got my xray and to see a doctor to confirm my foot was broken (5th metatarsal). He put a temp cast on, binding the sides and the back. The front was left open due to much swelling. This all happened on a Friday.
Total cost so far? $40 for crutches I chose to purchase.
On the following Monday, they called to schedule me for a formal cast on Wednesday.
I got the hospital on Wednesday, waited about an hour before I got called to get my light, fibreglass cast. After getting this all done, I was told to go back to fracture clinic to get a second xray to make sure my foot was set properly. Thankfully it was.
Total cost? $80 for fibreglass cast.
I was scheduled for another xray 2 weeks later (last Tuesday) to make sure my foot was setting properly. This was my longest wait so far...about 2 hours.
On September 1 I get this cast off.
Total? $120.00.
The only thing your health system takes care of is profits.
Here's a good video if you want to know more about our system. Read the articles by Sara Robinson as well. I'd say one of the most accurate descriptions of our system.
It may not be the solution for the US, but maybe it'll help people like you to stop wanking bullshit about the Canadian healthcare system.
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/thom-hartmann-myths-and-truths-about-canad
Sarah's latest antics make the age-old question - is she stupid or lying - moot. Either way, she's despicable.
"For starters, I can’t believe the liberals in this chat are satisfied with giving Big Brother unfettered access to their bank accounts."
Since that is just another piece of rightwing cowflop that has no actual relation to anything anybody on the left has actually said, it's good to know that you have started to see through your side's lies.
Steve, if you're wondering why I rarely respond to your comments, it's because you have no idea what you're talking about. First, no one is proposing a single-payer system. There's support for that. The proposals actually on the table are nothing like that. Second, you clearly have no idea what a single payer system is. Canada's systems is single payer. Medicare is single-payer. The NHS is NOT single payer. The NHS is a pure publicly run system like the VA system. Very different. Literally no one, in the entire county, is proposing reform that is even remotely comparable to the NHS. There couldn't be a bigger straw man.
AH the old conservative argument that the government can't do anything right thus it must be shrunk asap.
It's interesting to note that state socialism is gone, the USSR is history, Marxists are a curious survival, like coelecanths and horseshoe crabs, but somebody's still dreaming of the withering away of the State.
Only in this case it's not replaced by the dictatorship of the proletariat, but a dictatorship of a rather more well-heeled sort.
Arise, ye prisoners of regulation,
arise ye wealthy of the earth,
the NYSE thunders approbation,
a better ROI's in birth.
---
'Please spare us the NHS strawman.'
'Spare me your "nuance".'
Here I was thinking the French for 'truth' was verité and all the time it was 'nuance'.
"Literally no one, in the entire county, is proposing reform that is even remotely comparable to the NHS."
Well, I am.
I'm in favor of a nationally funded and maintained HMO on the model of Kaiser Permanente. It would own and manage hospitals and clinics, provide complete coverage (with differently scaled plan choices for those who preferred to pay in premiums through their taxes and those who preferred lower premiums in return for higher point of care costs in the form of co-pays), no or few deductibles, and guaranteed medical treatment for those on the plan. Consumers would be able to switch doctors as they wish and visit whatever facility is most convenient.
I do think the VA model is pretty crappy, and it should be noted that my model is a private sector model rather than a government model, but there is no reason a government health service could not run on this precise model.
However, I am not a part of the current congressional debate. So in that sense, AL is right. What's being talked about in Congress is not single payer and they are even talking about jettisoning the public option and increasing the share corporations pay for our health care. It's essentially an attempt to bail out the current system, not to reform it on a massive scale.
A.L.:
Literally no one, in the entire county, is proposing reform that is even remotely comparable to the NHS.
That isn't exactly true. While not government run, this looks a lot like federal control of the health insurance industry (current plans are exempt...for now). Sec. 123 creates a committee to help the HHS Sec. decide what benefits are required of insurance plans (which are defined in Sec. 122); only one member of this committee needs to be a doctor, and all, except the Surgeon General (the chairman of the committee), are appointed by the President or Comptroller General without Congressional say-so. Sec. 124 provides a process for adoption of committee recommendations on benefit standards by the HHS Sec., with a proviso that allows the Secretary to ignore the recommendations and put in his/her own standards, and all without Congressional notification.
Here's what I see. First, most insurance companies will be forced out of the health insurance business as it will be too costly. That reduces the number of health insurance providers greatly. Second, I doubt the public option will not be in the final bill. If it isn't, then the costs to cover those who would have been in the public option would further reduce the number of health insurance providers. As the number of health insurance providers dwindles, the public option will come back.
Third, the analogy used to describe the government as both umpire and first baseman if there is a public option is very appropriate. Since we know Democrats are shooting for a single-payer system, manipulating the benefits standards to favor the public option will drive all of the other health insurance providers out, leaving a single-payer, government-controlled health insurance, with all the foibles that comes with a monopoly run by the federal government; abuse of the system, an out-of-date bureaucracy, easy corruptibility, inefficiency, and so on.
What we're seeing isn't reform. All of my links regarding the NHS are very apt, and not at all strawmen. What's worse, it will massively add to the federal government's budget deficit every year for years (at least a decade, and probably longer), and an already out of control national debt. Forget about coming out of this recession (and the worst is not over, despite the rosy picture painted by the administration; they still haven't fixed the banking mess) with all the new and wondrous taxes that will be added.
Here we go again.
Steve, if any of what you're saying were true, and a government "monopoly on healthcare" actually did turn the country into Stewart's "corpse-strewn hellscape," then clearly the rest of the industrialized world wouldn't use this model?
Clearly, in fact, nobody would?
I mourn for the days when conservatives actually had opinions based on fact.
Hell, I miss the days when there were actual conservatives.
@ Steve AR:
Additionally, bureaucracies are notorious for being out of date in their practices, usually by decades. To get that changed requires a Congress that is actually on top of what an administration is doing. Unfortunately, and it doesn't matter what party has control of Congress, members are more interested in getting re-elected and lining their pockets than in governing.
Steve,
as one of those out of date federal bureaucrats, who had to have his stone tablets scanned by a FedEx Kinko's store to get this into A.L.'s comments section - KNOCK IT OFF. We use the same technology to do our jobs that private sector firms use, our policis are up to date, and given the number of times my Office Director gets called to the Hill to brief House and Senate committees and give official testamony in oversight hearings, I am quite sure they know and are overlooking what we do.
You may no tlike government. like many conservatives today I get the sense that you view government, collectively, as a suppressor fo the free market, a hindernace to personal action and responsibility, and the only reason nothing in this country works anymore. You are wrong on all counts, and I'll thank you to STOP insulting my coworkers and I who are doing the jobs you, as an American citizen, have asked us to do on your behalf through your Congressmen and Senators.
And if you can't debate healthcare reform on the merits of the actual bill, stop alshing out at us.
Philip H.,
Excuse me, sir, but nowhere did I insult you, your coworkers, or your work.
If you don't like my opinion, that's fine. But you being an employee of the federal government doesn't give you the moral authority to tell me to shut up.
Remember also that as an employee of the federal government, you work for me since I'm one of those who is paying you for your work. That, along with the First Amendment, gives me every right to speak my mind. And if my opinion isn't in agreement with yours, too bad.
Steve,
Bureaucracies are made up of bureaucrats. Can't take swipes at the one without hittin gthe other. And yes, by saying that bureaucracies are notorious for being out of date in their practices, you insulted bureaucracies, and hence bureaucrats.
You are correct that I work for you - but I know of no where else where derision of the collective is used as a motivational tool in an employment setting.
Philip,
Actually, SteveAR didn't limit himself to saying bureaucracies were out of date. He also said, "the foibles that comes with a monopoly run by the federal government; abuse of the system, an out-of-date bureaucracy, easy corruptibility, inefficiency, and so on."
He's right, though, about the first amendment giving him the right to expose his lack of knowledge and imperviousness to facts for our enjoyment.
As Voltaire was reputed to have said, "I disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it." -- speaking to the village idiot, I assume.
A.L,
These days liberal blogs are plagued by a deluge of ignorant and badly intentioned posts aimed at distracting the dialogue from the blogger's ideas. Such posters are the electronic equivalent of those who disrupt town halls. They post phony arguments, allege demonstrably false "facts," insult other posters, and are flamboyantly provocative in order to get others to respond to them instead of to the blogger.
Your blog suffers from this phenomenon. You post a good observation and a right wing poster then co-opts you to take the discussion into unrelated topics, getting posters to refute his loony strawmen and other factually challenged idiocies. Very few actually end up responding to and expanding upon your original good post.
What purpose is served by allowing your blog to be co-opted in that way? Perhaps the other posters enjoy getting into tit-for-tat arguments with right wingers, but I find it unproductive and do not enjoy reading the comments. My guess is that many progressives will feel the same way and hence your influence gets diluted owing to the blog's belonging, de facto, to a pugnacious right wing disrupter.
For the record, I refuse to respond to right wing posters or respond to their offensive provocations. My dialogue is only with you and like minded liberals.
Okay, now to make a post about your actual topic. I think your points are very well taken. I find it ironic that many of the arguments put forth against health care reform actually apply to the insurance industry and hence appear to be a form of projection.
For example, this bogus allegation about "death panels." It is estimated that 18,000 people a year die in the U.S. owing to lack of access to health care. Some of those cannot afford the care. A million people a year go bankrupt paying for needed care. Some are denied coverage or treatment by health insurers. Is that in essence a death panel?
Then there is rationing. Nearly 50 million people in the U.S. have no coverage at all. So their "ration" is zero. Rationing cannot get more severe than that. No current reform proposal will result in rationing; all will result in dramatically expanded coverage, hence de-rationing.
Having the government bureaucrats between you and your doctor. Patently not true in any sense, but the current system does have insurance bureaucrats between you and your doctor. Both patients and doctors hate that for good reasons. It's a major reason why the AMA now supports reform.
And so on for the other ridiculous arguments against health care reform. As I said in a prior post, their intent is not to make sense -- it is to be as wildly absurd as possible in order to distract, incite, and disrupt.
Tell me again how this is a higher level of health care, because I don't believe you one little bit.
I'm not eager to continue this discussion because you clearly have no understanding of reasoned evidence or statistics: linking to a hodge-podge of human interest stories is not data and it does not support your point. In the same way, the myriad of articles detailing individual instances where private health-care has failed do not make that point either. The way you compare national programs is with large-sample longitudinal studies; for starters:
Here is a long-range National Bureau of Economic Research study which shows that satisfaction, "met-needs" rates, and general health are higher in Canada (similar when adjusted for lifestyle choices) even though they pay substantially less for health-care.
Here and here are two longitudinal studies on the VA. The first of which finds consistently higher satisfaction versus the private sector over the course of nearly a decade. The second compares care for Iraqi private contractors versus the VA, and finds that private care premiums and denial rates are unreasonably high.
Here is an analysis of the Israeli health-care system which finds record rates of satisfaction while spending half as much on health-care as the US.
These are facts not anecdotes, and this is how you're supposed to come to a consensus on an issue. Any objective measure of public health-care in other countries shows it to be at an equal or higher level with significantly decreased spending.
trizzlor:
Here is a long-range National Bureau of Economic Research study which shows that satisfaction, "met-needs" rates, and general health are higher in Canada (similar when adjusted for lifestyle choices) even though they pay substantially less for health-care.
Interesting piece. Thanks for sharing. Here's an interesting tidbit:
While the incidence of unmet needs is slightly lower in Canada (11 percent, vs. 14 percent in the U.S.), it is interesting to note that waiting time is cited as the reason by over half of Canadians who report unmet needs. By contrast, cost is cited as the reason by over half of Americans.
Here's one thing that isn't factored into those wait times, cost. There's a cost to lost wages and/or lost productivity due to those wait times, and I doubt that data has even been looked at.
I love the conclusion:
The authors conclude that while it is commonly supposed that a single-payer, publicly-funded system would deliver better health out-comes and distribute health resources more fairly than a multi-payer system with a large private component, their study does not provide support for this view.
The VA:
Here and here are two longitudinal studies on the VA.
Let me stop you right there. I support the VA, including the taxes I pay into it, and wish it were run better than sometimes it is portrayed. Wounded veterans deserve having their care paid for out of our pockets since they risked it all for the nation.
As far as the Israeli example, forget about it. For all its virtues, Israel has primarily been a socialist country since its inception. As with Canada, Britain, France, etc., what works for them may not, and probably won't, work here.
Here is what you all don't get. Conservatives aren't against reform, provided it is reform. What Democrats offer isn't reform but a shift, an unconstitutional shift of who pays for all this. Considering the disaster that is Porkulus (no, I don't believe the administration's rosy picture of it working), the bailouts, and the simplistic Clunkers programs, along with this administration's penchant for taking over private companies and doling out ownership to partners who don't deserve it instead of those who actually fund these schemes (in violation of the 5th Amendment), you can understand why conservatives are skeptical that what the Dems are trying to ram down America's collective throat will be an economic and health care disaster.
SteveAR: First, thanks for actually looking at the studies; it's reassuring to know that we can still consider each others' arguments with sane eyes.
First, the Canada study is indeed an interesting one because it dispels both they utopian and dystopian myths of the left and the right. However, it's important to note that even though Canada has been the GOP boogeyman of national health-care, they still maintain comparable coverage levels at 2/3rds our costs - I would say that's a positive control.
Further, you seem to agree that the government can run a better health-care system than what's available privately - but that only veterans deserve it. And finally, with Israel, we get down to the nitty-gritty of your point which is that even though other countries do have better national health-care it just won't work here because ... it inherently won't.
Now, we can argue all day about weather entitlements work in the US (and no, NHS is not socialism) - I'm quite happy with my roads & highways, libraries, public universities, the NSF/NIH, commuter rail, Prairie Home Companion, The Human Genome Project, etc ... But I'll grant you the point - I can understand why Republicans are skeptical of the health-care bill, what I can't understand, if it is such a disaster, is why there hasn't been a single criticism of the bill on its actual merits rather than on fan-fiction like "death boards" or unsupported charges of socialist destruction.
trizzlor- yeah, I am having a hard time understanding how the NBER study supports your position. Rather, it seems to point to the fallacy of saying "health care costs less and people live longer in Canada so their system must be better."
Apart from this particular study, I find it strange that people make such a blanket comparison. If the point is that government run health care, per se, delivers health care in a more cost efficient manner, one would expect that the US results for Medicare patients would be comparable to other countries. Are there studies showing that? My impression is that the US spends more both on Medicare and privately insured patients than do other countries. Whether this additional spending is warranted by improved health outcomes is another question, but it shows that lower cost doesn't magically appear as a result of the government being in charge.
Common sense suggests that if we are going to dramatically lower costs, as the President promises, we are going to have to reduce the amount of medical care that is currently provided. It would be great to think that this can occur simply by eliminating "unnecessary" (according to whom?) tests and procedures, but nobody really believes that, do they?
Steve: It is my experience that the VA is run exceptionally well. I've met very few veterans that were not both grateful and satisfied for the care they receive through VA hospitals.
And Israel is not a Socialist nation. I really hate how this word is thrown around like a bludgeon in U.S. politics. government providing services in exchange for taxes is not Socialism. Government dictating the direction of the economy by Fiat is. Compare the economic controls that Venezuela exercises over its businesses to those of Israel. Venezuela confiscates businesses that fail to abide by price controls, for exmaple. I know of no such practice in Israel, nor is anything like that being proposed in the U.S.
The World Socialist party HATES Obama. to call his plan Socialist when the Socialist party hates him is completely irrational. this is from the World Socialist Web site:
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/aug2009/pers-a06.shtml
"More than any previous administration in US history, the Obama administration is pursuing an openly class-based economic policy. Having shoveled trillions of dollars into the coffers of the banks and other financial institutions, the administration is now proclaiming the virtues of austerity and “fiscal discipline” when it comes to programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, on which tens of millions of working people and the retired depend."
sounds an awful lot like conservative criticism of the obama administration, doesn't it? I think you might be a Socialist Steve ;)
MLS,
Another source of savings would be for the government to use its clout to negotiate better prices, just like Walmart does, or all insurance companies do, and just like the ridiculous "Medicare drug benefit" doesn't. I actually asked a provider what a certain procedure would cost, and they sent me an estimate. For people not covered by insurance: $1900. For people covered by one company, $1200. For people covered by the largest insurer in the state (a non profit): $900 (which is also about what Medicare pays, I've heard.)
As far as having some control over what procedures are covered, is it better to have some bunch of corporate bureaucrats, or a bunch of government bureaucrats do the deciding? BTW, with apologies to SteveAR for poaching on his turf, if you think government bureaucrats are high-handed, arbitrary, and prone to corruption, you haven't had any experience with the corporate variety, as found in any of the larger corporations.
Ever tried to appeal a refusal-to-pay by a health insurance company? I have. I've also seen first-hand an appeal in Medicare. I'll take the second any day of the week.
trizzlor:
Further, you seem to agree that the government can run a better health-care system than what's available privately - but that only veterans deserve it.
Along with the reasons I mentioned earlier, it is always a good idea to treat members of the military exceptionally well. Nations that don't have usually run into trouble. Besides, the government, us, should want to treat our defenders without any more undo burden than what has already been put on them.
what I can't understand, if it is such a disaster, is why there hasn't been a single criticism of the bill on its actual merits rather than on fan-fiction like "death boards" or unsupported charges of socialist destruction.
There's two problems that I see. One, those in Congress and the administration who support this haven't read it, don't really know what's in it, and do a lousy job explaining it; same with their supporters. But then they want we the people to support it. It doesn't work that way.
Remember also that liberals are notorious for using the phrase "social justice" to describe a lot of things. Conservatives don't believe in it and never will. As soon as it is used, we recognize the socialist elements in whatever is being proposed.
Two, it's the contrarian nature of conservatives to assume right off the bat that government will screw-up what would be done better in the private sector. There are some things they do well (you list some of them), but much of that should be done at the local level; leave the federal government out of it. Time has proven conservatives correct. Many of us were suckered into supporting Bush (not that McCain would have been any better in 2000) because he was no fiscal conservative. But he was better compared to Gore or Kerry, and his tax cuts helped stop the recession he inherited dead in its tracks, something Obama should have figured out early on (Bush should have to, especially with his ridiculous $150B welfare plan last year, bailing out the banks, and letting that miserable worm Paulson make a mess out of TARP).
trizzlor- yeah, I am having a hard time understanding how the NBER study supports your position. Rather, it seems to point to the fallacy of saying "health care costs less and people live longer in Canada so their system must be better."
I didn't say this, rather, I said that health-care costs less in Canada and "needs-met" rates are nearly equivalent so their system must be better. I think this is a pretty fair assessment on it's own, but my point was not to promote Canadian-style health-care (which I dislike) but to show that even the pariah example of national health-care is still more efficient than private care in the US.
I think the Medicare comparison is a good idea but difficult because Medicare inherently covers the elderly and at-risk individuals that cost more. Here's a comparison I found of public & private care within the United States that shows similar growth in spending but a significantly lower administrative share. I'd be curious to see an international comparison of elderly care if anyone can dig it up.
Of course, there's always the counter-argument (which, admittedly, ThinkProgress pushes as well) that Medicare is still forced to work within a broken system dominated by bloated private care and so has little room for improvement. This is a conceptual point that's hard to support or refute.
There's two problems that I see. One, those in Congress and the administration who support this haven't read it, don't really know what's in it, and do a lousy job explaining it; same with their supporters. But then they want we the people to support it. It doesn't work that way.
Maybe if the left didn't have to spend so much time refuting the "death panel" argument, and the "euthanize your grandmother" argument, and any one of a number of other inane muddle-the-debate arguments thrown out by the right, they would have a chance to do better.
The right seems to be throwing out argument after argument that are all, every single one of them, based on 1 of 3 things. They are either 1) a bold faced lie (the euthanize your grandmother argument), or 2)they are based on the logical fallacy that the public option is the only option (the your healthcare will be rationed argument), or 3)they are based on claims that the reform will actually create problems that frankly, already exist (the bureaucrat between your and your doctor argument).
In other words, we're too busy cleaning the sh*t your side is flinging against the wall hoping it sticks.
Your side had 8 years to fix health care the way your side would like it to be fixed. Your side did nothing. So your side simply doesn't want it fixed and the debate coming from your side isn't that Obama's idea isn't a good one, it's simply that Obama's idea is an idea to fix it, and that's ultimately what you're against.
i just dont understand how the steverar's and the rest of the right ing boot licking shills can sleep at night. maybe they are fooled into the thinking that the world is fair, and if you make good choices, work hard, be a good, upright citizen, then everything will be ok.
as i have previously stated i have health insurance and they are making the claim that my sleep apnea is a pre-existing condition because they say it should have been diagnosed prior to me recieving health insurance. this is my health insurance from my employer. i have a host of new health problems developing due to the untreated sleep apnea. in the long run my insurance compay will pay more for the long term effects than for the treatment that would fix my current situation.
the steves of the world are arrogant, selfish assholes. its time the left mobilized and quit even trying to engage the right this is not theory, people, this is real world and something must be done now.
Frankie:
Maybe if the left didn't have to spend so much time refuting the "death panel" argument, and the "euthanize your grandmother" argument, and any one of a number of other inane muddle-the-debate arguments thrown out by the right, they would have a chance to do better.
That is a ridiculously pathetic excuse. Democrats have had total control of the agenda since pretty much after Obama was elected last November. The fact that the "right" has been able to get any traction with what they are saying shows the incompetence of the Democratic leadership in communicating their position (instead of explaining what they want, they've engaged in nothing more than campaign rhetoric and demagoguery) and the utter incompetence in developing and running their policies (Porkulus bank bailouts, the economy, the GM and Chrysler takeovers, Cash-for-Clunkers, S-CHIP expansion, Gitmo, etc.). Obama had promised a public debate on health care; instead, he engaged in private deals and outsourced the rest to Pelosi, who shows no interest in working with Republicans. As a result, Obama's so-called "bipartisanship" is nothing more than one more of his broken campaign promises; also as a result, neither Obama or Pelosi (or Reid) can get enough Democrats on board, even though all they need are Democratic votes in Congress to pass anything. Don't go blaming Republicans for Democratic incompetence.
Your side had 8 years to fix health care the way your side would like it to be fixed.
Excuse me, but your side (Clinton) had six years to try to fix it through a Republican Congress. He didn't bother after one try with a Democratic Congress.
That is a ridiculously pathetic excuse. Democrats have had total control of the agenda since pretty much after Obama was elected last November. The fact that the "right" has been able to get any traction with what they are saying shows the incompetence of the Democratic leadership in communicating their position
Your comment does nothing to refute my point, and throwing a little bit of make believe in there didn't help. The family with the 2 kids having a screaming food fight in a restaurant are the ones who get noticed - and the ones who make themselves noticed aren't always benefitting from the attention.
Frankie:
Your comment does nothing to refute my point, and throwing a little bit of make believe in there didn't help.
You're the one making things up. You had no point to begin with, and you don't do a thing to refute my point that the Democrats in the administration and Congress are utter incompetents.
SteveAR,
Could you perhaps give your background in government so we can evaluate your ability to assess the competence of people?
Or perhaps you could give the metric you use to measure competence. Something besides not infuriating the right wing, because that seems to be a pretty meaningless measure.
If neither of those work for you, perhaps you could share with us the names of competent people and their accomplishments. That would help us assess your assertions.
C2H50H:
Could you perhaps give your background in government so we can evaluate your ability to assess the competence of people?
I didn't realize I had to have a background in government in order to assess the competence of people in government. Interesting. I thought I only had to be a voter. Or perhaps I have to have a background in government to be a voter as well. Let me know if that's true, and where that is in the Constitution and the U.S. Code.
In an earlier comment, you said:
He's right, though, about the first amendment giving him the right to expose his lack of knowledge and imperviousness to facts for our enjoyment.
Could you perhaps give your background in government so we can evaluate your ability to assess what you believe is my lack of knowledge and imperviousness to facts?
Or perhaps you could give the metric you use to measure my lack of knowledge and imperviousness to facts. Something besides not infuriating the left wing, because that seems to be a pretty meaningless measure.
SteveAR: Now you're just being contrarian for no good reason. C2H50H offered three paths to demonstrate being an "expert" - personal experience, a consistent/verifiable metric, an approximation of that metric by example. Your response that he has to prove himself to be an expert to show that you aren't one is just childish.
Likewise, your prior argument that Democrats are incompetent because they can't overcome delusional far-right arguments doesn't really hold water. The country is now fairly evenly divided on this issue, except one side thinks Obama is planning mass-euthanasia and the other thinks this is a sensible improvement on a failing system - how is any sort of debate supposed to take place in such an environment? How can any compromise possible come from it? The parallels to birtherism are very apt, if nearly half the republican party doesn't believe the facts in front of their eyes, what kind of discussions are even possible?
SteveAR,
You are the one making the big claim of incompetence on the part of, well, of all Democrats everywhere, I guess.
But -- since you asked, I got a PhD in Applied Mathematics more than 30 years ago, have worked for the government, and managed government contracts. I've worked with many government bureaucrats, and have known a few congressmen personally. I've published peer-reviewed papers, a few patents, and given more presentations than I care to think about.
I won't claim that I'm able, after only six months, to evaluate the competence of politicians. Heck, at this point in the Bush administration all I knew was that the man couldn't give a coherent speech and let Cheney have too much power. It was only after Katrina that I became sure he was incompetent.
As for your ability to assess facts, I note your comments like "Democrats have had total control of the agenda since pretty much after Obama was elected last November."
This is an utter, blatant falsehood, making you either ignorant or a liar.
Stevie,
Your non-point in refuting my non-point all started because you made a stupid point that i commented on.
A majority of republicans can't bring themselves to state Obama is definitely an American Citizen. That's not from a lack of the Democratic ability to make a point. It's from the stupidity of those calling themselves Republicans. So Republicans can't seem to convince anyone smarter than a typical birther that healthcare reform is bad. Not sure it's the democrats who are incompetent at making their points.
unfortunately stevear does have a point: the democrats have the majority, they should be able to control the agenda. the spineless, feckless nature of left wing buerocrats makes them ineffective leaders. this is a lesson the left could learn from the right: when you have the ball, take it to the goal.
C2H50H:
"Democrats have had total control of the agenda since pretty much after Obama was elected last November."
This is an utter, blatant falsehood, making you either ignorant or a liar.
Let's examine that. Obama wasn't yet President in November, but Democrats did have control of both Houses of Congress and Bush was truly a lame-duck. Hell, Democrats didn't even try to finish up the FY 2009 budget until after Bush was out of office. Point for me.
Beginning January 3, 2009, Democrats had a greater majority in both Houses of Congress than they did the previous two years. A second point for me.
Beginning January 20, 2009, Obama became President, and has been up until this very moment. The earmark-laden FY 2009 Omnibus spending bill finally passed, some six months late. Then there are those items I mentioned earlier. A third point (woo hoo!!! Hat Trick!!!) for me.
Am I missing something here? It seems to me that Democrats have had control of the agenda for the last nine months. Just because the Democrats can't get all the Democrats to vote for the health bill in order for it to pass isn't the fault of the Republicans, since there isn't enough of them in Congress to stop it. But I could be wrong (although I doubt it).
Frankie:
A majority of republicans can't bring themselves to state Obama is definitely an American Citizen. That's not from a lack of the Democratic ability to make a point. It's from the stupidity of those calling themselves Republicans. So Republicans can't seem to convince anyone smarter than a typical birther that healthcare reform is bad. Not sure it's the democrats who are incompetent at making their points.
I don't know what that has to do with anything. As far as I'm concerned, Obama matched all the credentials for being President; born in the U.S.A. and he's over 35. As far as I know, the vast majority of Republicans and conservatives think the same way, and believe the "Birthers" are nuts. There is a smaller percentage of so-called "Republican" Birthers that believe Obama is not a citizen than the percentage of Democrats who believe Bush was responsible for 9/11, the Truthers. I would hope the remainder of the Democrats believe the Truthers are nuts.
Like I said, Democrats can pass this bill without a single Republican vote in either the House or the Senate. So it isn't the fault of Republicans or conservatives if Democrats are incompetent hacks.
SteveAR,
If you meant mid-January (which, given the blue dogs and the structure of the Senate, is at best a half truth in itself), then why did you say "pretty much" since November 4 of last year?
A half-truth is still a lie, and defending it doesn't make you more credible.
C2H50H:
A half-truth? Who's telling a half-truth here? That would be you, not me.
The vast majority of House Democrats, including most of those "Blue Dogs", voted for Porkulus. Every Senate Democrat, including all of those "Blue Dogs" (along with Kennedy and Byrd, who were trotted out for the vote), voted for Porkulus; one of the Senate Republicans who voted for Porkulus, Specter, has now become a Democrat.
The vast majority of House Democrats, including those "Blue Dogs", voted for Cap-and-Tax, and they voted for it after accepting "bribes" from the leftist House Democratic "leadership" (the vote in the Senate hasn't taken place).
And as I mentioned, Congressional Democrats held off on voting for the rest of the FY 2009 budget until after Bush was out of office, making it six months late. It is also nearly $1.3 trillion short of cash, higher than what was originally projected and adding extensively to the debt.
What your peddling is a half-truth, a lie in your words. I'm not. And I have the facts to back it up.
What your peddling is a half-truth, a lie in your words. I'm not. And I have the facts to back it up.
Like when you claimed Sarah Palin actually fought against the tax increase on Oil Companies that increased the dole paid out to Alaskans?
Anonymous SteveAR said...
He then links to a number of sources talking about how impossible it is to purchase insurance for children (or adults) with Down Syndrome.
I'm guessing that this is untrue. People who get their health insurance via their employers, which is a huge majority of the country, will find their children covered, even if the children have Down Syndrome. I'm guessing Trig Palin is covered under the current system.
I'm sure Trig is probably covered, at least until he is an adult. But once Trig passes the arbitrary age cut-off for being included on his parents' insurance, he'll be on his own and likely end up in state-funded Medicaid.
And if Trig's parents were unemployed or uninsured, that's what he'd be getting right now.
Ah, if only the health care debate were about health care! As a physician, it pains me to see the right wing twist the issues into knots, beyond all reason. As a psychiatrist, I appreciate that "reason" does not have much to do with the matter. Alas, we are dealing with the Hunter-Gatherers. For readers who want to delve, please see my essay on the etalkinghead website.
http://www.etalkinghead.com/archives/health-care-and-the-huntergatherers-2009-08-28.html
Ronald Pies MD
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home