The Party Without Answers
This exchange between House Minority Whip Eric Cantor and one of his constituents beautifully encapsulates the callousness and incoherence of the GOP approach to health care policy.
For those of you who can't watch the video, here's the transcript of the exchange (via Alan Colmes):
The situation this constituent describes is, sadly, all too common in this country. You can be fine one minute, but then you lose your job, and with it your insurance. If you're then unfortunate enough to get sick, you're flat out screwed. Your options are to go bankrupt or to go without care. That doesn't happen in any other industrialized country.
Faced with this all too common scenario, Cantor has nothing to offer. The suggestions he eventually comes up with are profoundly unhelpful and deeply hypocritical. This outspoken opponent of government-run health care suggests, feebly, that perhaps the woman might qualify for an existing government program. This, of course, is highly unlikely given that she owns her home and just recently lost her job. He then suggests that there might be charities that are willing to help. This too is very unlikely. And the thought of having to grovel for charity, while you're sick, is a prospect that would be deeply humiliating to most people.
The reality is that, in order to get the operation she needs, this woman will most likely have to sell her home and deplete her savings, very likely to the point of bankruptcy. Medical bills are the leading cause of personal bankruptcy in this country.
Cantor knows this. He also knows that he opposes any reforms that might actually help this woman in some way. But he can't say that. That would sound heartless. So instead he pretends as if this woman has options available her, knowing full well that she doesn't and that if he has his way, she won't. What a weasel.
For those of you who can't watch the video, here's the transcript of the exchange (via Alan Colmes):
CONSTITUENT: I have a very close relative, a woman in her early forties, who did have a wonderful, high-paying job, owns her own home and is a real contributing member of society. She lost her job. Just a couple of weeks ago, she found out that she has tumors in her belly and that she needs an operation. Her doctors told her that they are growing and that she needs to get this operation quickly. She has no insurance.What does that even mean? No one should be sitting without an option to be addressed?
[...]
CANTOR: First of all I guess I would ask what the situation is in terms of income eligibility and the existing programs that are out there. Because if we look at the uninsured that are out there right now, there is probably 23, 24% of the uninsured that is already eligible for an existing government program [...] Beyond that, I know that there are programs, there are charitable organizations, there are hospitals here who do provide charity care if there’s an instance of indigency and the individual is not eligible for existing programs that there can be some cooperative effort. No one in this country, given who we are, should be sitting without an option to be addressed.
The situation this constituent describes is, sadly, all too common in this country. You can be fine one minute, but then you lose your job, and with it your insurance. If you're then unfortunate enough to get sick, you're flat out screwed. Your options are to go bankrupt or to go without care. That doesn't happen in any other industrialized country.
Faced with this all too common scenario, Cantor has nothing to offer. The suggestions he eventually comes up with are profoundly unhelpful and deeply hypocritical. This outspoken opponent of government-run health care suggests, feebly, that perhaps the woman might qualify for an existing government program. This, of course, is highly unlikely given that she owns her home and just recently lost her job. He then suggests that there might be charities that are willing to help. This too is very unlikely. And the thought of having to grovel for charity, while you're sick, is a prospect that would be deeply humiliating to most people.
The reality is that, in order to get the operation she needs, this woman will most likely have to sell her home and deplete her savings, very likely to the point of bankruptcy. Medical bills are the leading cause of personal bankruptcy in this country.
Cantor knows this. He also knows that he opposes any reforms that might actually help this woman in some way. But he can't say that. That would sound heartless. So instead he pretends as if this woman has options available her, knowing full well that she doesn't and that if he has his way, she won't. What a weasel.
posted by A.L. at 9:33 PM
43 Comments:
A weasel with taxpayer funded healthcare.
I know for a fact that California's MediCal (that state's version of MediCaid) require you to deplete your 401K before you get below the asset threshold to qualify for help. It's brutal.
You can keep your home and a car of nominal value, but that only shows the different treatment between homeowners and renters, which is also unfair.
one wonders how these aging boomers with their diabetes and such can be so against "government run healthcare" and also be so upset that "they will take money from medicare".
people like cantor think if life gives ya aids, make lemon aids!
"Movies and television shows, like clever hypothetical questions, are carefully designed to lead viewers to specific moral conclusions."
I wonder who said that?
Yeah, yeah, I know, this wasn't a "hypothetical" question. After all, we are sure that this anonymous person was accurately presenting a real life situation.
Your "argument" is based entirely on assumptions. You assume that the woman in question had no option to maintain her health insurance after losing her job. You assume that under health care reform, whatever it may be, she would have such an option and would take advantage of it. And you assume that under alternative reform scenarios (such as one that would create a nationwide market for individual insurance), she would not have been able to purchase insurance.
If you make all these assumptions, this hypothetical situation provides support for your position. But if you resolve all factual questions in your own favor, of course you win. After all, Obama promises that his plan will expand access, improve quality and reduce costs. Medicare spending will be substantially reduced without harming beneficiaries. Millions will be provided health insurance without increasing the deficit. Overall health care costs will be reduced without affecting access or quality for anyone. Taxes and mandates on employers and individuals won't cause financial hardship to anyone.
If we assume that all of these things are true, who could be against health care reform? That would be like opposing a tax cut that will increase government revenue.
Speaking of assumptions, MLS, how about the assumption that your ilk made that we could borrow money to fight two wars, cut taxes, and balance the budget?
Please remember your cost arguments against health care reform when you are agitating for a war with Iran.
You can be fine one minute, but then you lose your job, and with it your insurance. If you're then unfortunate enough to get sick, you're flat out screwed. Your options are to go bankrupt or to go without care.
That's it? Those are the only options available in the whole, wide world? There is absolutely no other thing an individual or other individuals can do? None?
I personally know someone who was in far worse financial straits than the woman in the video, nor probably didn't come close to making the kind of money. The person I know also owns a home. She was seriously ill and didn't have the cash on hand to pay the part of the medical costs her insurance didn't cover. She managed to pay the bill and keep the house without going bankrupt.
So what A.L. is offering as a solution is that every individual should go through life oblivious to what can happen to that individual knowing that the government will fix any potential health problem the individual might possibly face? That's a better answer than what Cantor gave?
I have an idea. Since no bill is going to be passed anytime soon and probably wouldn't be passed in time to help this woman out, A.L.'s firm or some other company or organization run by rich leftists could hire the woman in some fashion and pay all the medical bills. She would have a job, it wouldn't be charity, and the woman won't be humiliated or lose her home (provided she was paid enough).
As far as the GOP offering no ideas, they've offered plenty of them. It's just that Obama and Congressional Democrats are either ignoring them or have rejected them outright. It's very possible that the reforms Cantor and the Republicans would likely help a woman like the one in the video. But opponents of Cantor and Republicans oppose any, and I mean any, of those ideas. So instead, opponents of these measures say that Republicans offer nothing. It's not true, but that doesn't stop leftists and Democrats from saying it.
mls:
'You assume that the woman in question had no option to maintain her health insurance after losing her job.'
I have some experience with this. Despite the existence of COBRA, the costs of COBRA are high enough that many people who could afford their health insurance when their employer matched their contributions cannot afford the rate set to continue their insurance under COBRA. So while everyone 'has the option' of continuing their insurance benefits, not everyone can afford that option.
Yes, it is an assumption to say that she could not (or did not believe she could) continue her insurance upon losing her job. It is, however, a very likely assumption. It is more likely than the opposite assumption, that a woman who owns her own home and just recently lost her job could qualify for Medicaid. This is the assumption Cantor makes.
A great many of the decisions made in the world are based on assumptions, guesses, and difficult decisions. This can't be avoided. What can be avoided is basing assumptions on ideological opposition instead of the best facts available. Cantor and other opponents of health care reform are not paying attention to the best facts available and frequently baldly misrepresent them or outright lie.
AL:
"This outspoken opponent of government-run health care suggests, feebly, that perhaps the woman might qualify for an existing government program."
Of course, Cantor would like to cut or privatize those programs as well. He doesn't tell her this in this instance, which I find despicably dishonest. Conservatives fight health care reform by beating the gongs of Medicaid and Medicare. Then, the next time they have a president or a congressional majority, they campaign to cut Medicaid and Medicare too.
What we're really talking about, on the right, is social Darwinism. Whether from Ayn Rand and Thomas Malthus on the secular side or John Calvin and Kenneth Copeland on the religious side, conservatives have a belief in the 'virtue' of the successful and the 'sin' of the unsuccessful. Those who suffer life's greatest misfortunes are either guilty of great failings of character (and thus to blame for their own misfortunes) or being tested or punished by God, if not predestined for damnation.
Not everyone acknowledges or accepts this belief verbally. It drips from everything written by right wing bloggers and spoken by right wing commentators and politicians.
MLS,
I see. So Cantor should have said that the woman in question should have not lost her job and should have gotten COBRA.
Or perhaps, like SteveAR, we should assume that somehow, through some deus ex machina (which he doesn't specify), she'll be treated. Yup, faith and hope will cure you, lady.
Excellent advice, to which I would add even better advice: either don't get sick, lady, or else be independently wealthy to the point that a little thing like cancer surgery and treatment will not put a large dent in your finances.
Or be a legal resident of Canada, France, England, or any of the other nations in the world.
It's just her bad luck to live here in the USA and get sick.
Yup, great advice.
Let's be heartless and just consider the statistics, which say that all A.L.'s assumptions are born out, to the extent that 45,000 people in the USA die prematurely due to the disease, lack of adequate health insurance.
C2H50H:
Or perhaps, like SteveAR, we should assume that somehow, through some deus ex machina (which he doesn't specify), she'll be treated. Yup, faith and hope will cure you, lady.
It wasn't some deus ex machina that allowed the person I know to pay her substantial health care bill. It was a very real and legitimate solution. I never said it wasn't without cost, because she did have to pay the bill. But she didn't go bankrupt.
A.L.'s argument was that the ONLY options now for those who don't have health insurance (and would also include those who are insured but have large out-of-pocket medical expenses) is either denial of care (potentially, death) or bankruptcy. That's it. A.L. explicitly states there are ABSOLUTELY no other options available at all. That simply isn't true.
We need to cut Steve a little slack here: the GOPers do have a healthcare plan. It goes like this:
1. Give all your money to our cronies in the private health insurance industry, so they can return big wads of it to us in the form of campaign donations and other bribes, which we can then use to get back into power.
2. Get sick, and have your private insurance company unilaterally cancel your insurance because you're too expensive to cover and will dent their tiny profit margin.
3. Die.
MLS,
That's a pretty weak response. I write a post about an actual story told by a constituent at an actual event and you respond by quoting my post about drawing moral conclusions from fiction? Do you have any reason to doubt the truth of what this woman was saying? And even if, for some reason, she was making this up, it's not as if this is some crazy scenario. This stuff happens all the time. I know people who have had this kind of stuff happen to them.
As C2 pointed out, it's not very helpful to say that this woman could have purchased COBRA. Many people can't afford COBRA and, regardless, it's too late for that.
It's also silly to suggest that the reforms on the table right now wouldn't help this woman. They clearly would. If you bar denial for pre-existing conditions (which every proposal does), she could go purchase a policy right now (which would be much cheaper than paying out of pocket). If you provide a public option, she could purchase care at an affordable rate directly from the government. And these proposals also include subsidies so that people who have low income (but don't qualify for Medicaid) can get assistance in purchasing insurance. In short, there are a number of provisions in the various health care reform bills that would immediately and materially help this woman.
The same is not true of the half-assed proposals offered by the GOP, which would do nothing to help her. Moreover, it's worth pointing out (in response to Steve), that the GOP had ample opportunity to try to reform health care when they ran the show in Washington and they didn't even lift their pencils.
A.L. said:
"that the GOP had ample opportunity to try to reform health care when they ran the show in Washington and they didn't even lift their pencils"
Conservatives ALWAYS want change. (just not now.)
AL-We could debate the merits of health care reform all day, but let me pick up on one specific issue you raise. You say “If you bar denial for pre-existing conditions (which every proposal does), she could go purchase a policy right now (which would be much cheaper than paying out of pocket).”
Does the “pre-existing conditions” provision really work the way you suggest? If so, why would anyone purchase insurance if they can just wait until they have an illness that costs more than the cost of the insurance? I have been assuming that the provision only applies to people who have previously been accepted for insurance (presumably without committing fraud). Otherwise there would seem to be a glaring free rider problem.
Perhaps I have underestimated the policy geniuses who staff Democratic congressional offices.
Steve,
Any proposals whose no. 1 cost-cutting device or one of them, is tort liability reform, is not a serious proposal. Moreover, even though there is no meaningful evidence suggesting tort liability increases costs, Obama put it on the table. What has the GOP offered in return? The fact is that the GOP has shown no interest, at any time, in good-faith negotiating, despite ample opportunity to do so, especially through the Baucus efforts.
Wow, mls managed to miss the whole "mandate" thing.
It's astounding that someone with internet access could not know about this.
Unless they're being completely dishonest...naw, couldn't be.
It's sort of like how Steve thinks that his one dubious anecdote disproves all of the facts. It's kind of cute how he thinks that he's got the credibility to do that.
I call BS on both of them. Again.
MLS,
My understanding is that negotiated tradeoff with the industry for barring denials for pre-existing conditions is the mandate. That's how you stop the free-rider problem. Everyone has to buy coverage.
"I personally know someone who was in far worse financial straits than the woman in the video, nor probably didn't come close to making the kind of money. The person I know also owns a home. She was seriously ill and didn't have the cash on hand to pay the part of the medical costs her insurance didn't cover. She managed to pay the bill and keep the house without going bankrupt."
Steve,
your retort here is amusing, because you are comparing apples to ice cubes. Your acquaintance had insurance - it just wasn't sufficient to cover the entire cost of her medical needs. The friend in the video didn't have insurance of any kind; my experience suggests that she would have had substantially higher costs then your acquaintance.
And that's the fundamental problem with the "leave it to the markets" approach that we so often hear from the conservative side of the aisle. The markets have failed, in that they have priced medical procedures in a two tiered system - one set of prices for those with insurance, and another set for those without. Those facing medical needs in the Without Insurance category can not afford the pricing for that category. So they are either denied services, or are denied future economic opportunity to pay for current medical needs. Neither is a good, fair, just, or democratic solution.
A.L.:
The same is not true of the half-assed proposals offered by the GOP, which would do nothing to help her.
Really? How? Explain how all of the Republican proposals would do nothing.
Moreover, it's worth pointing out (in response to Steve), that the GOP had ample opportunity to try to reform health care when they ran the show in Washington and they didn't even lift their pencils.
Leftists really do make a living out of excuses, don't they? Ted Kennedy wouldn't work with Richard Nixon to put in legislation that seemed to be similar to the Baucus proposal. Jimmy Carter had four years and did nothing. Bill Clinton had six years to work with Republicans to create something better than Hillarycare (which Democrats failed to pass, by the way) and did nothing. See? Anyone can make excuses.
Mike Lamb:
Any proposals whose no. 1 cost-cutting device or one of them, is tort liability reform, is not a serious proposal.
Not true. It would be helpful if you read all of them.
A.L.:
My understanding is that negotiated tradeoff with the industry for barring denials for pre-existing conditions is the mandate. That's how you stop the free-rider problem. Everyone has to buy coverage.
Then everyone is being taxed, which goes against what Obama campaigned on.
Philip H.:
your retort here is amusing, because you are comparing apples to ice cubes. Your acquaintance had insurance - it just wasn't sufficient to cover the entire cost of her medical needs. The friend in the video didn't have insurance of any kind; my experience suggests that she would have had substantially higher costs then your acquaintance.
My acquaintance's out-of-pocket expenses were 95% of one year's pay. Yet, she paid the bill and didn't go bankrupt. Yes, the expenses the lady in the video has could be higher, and she doesn't have a job now, although she still has a home she owns. But it's ridiculous to say that the only options she has, as A.L. asserts, are to deny herself care or go bankrupt.
And that's the fundamental problem with the "leave it to the markets" approach that we so often hear from the conservative side of the aisle. The markets have failed, in that they have priced medical procedures in a two tiered system - one set of prices for those with insurance, and another set for those without.
Over 40% of all health care costs are paid for by the various levels of government. How can the market have failed when the government is nearly half of this $2 trillion industry? Plus, who set up this two-tiered system? That's right, the government. And now were are supposed to believe that the government can greatly improve medical care, greatly expand medical technology, and all at a lower cost because they say so? Even the CBO hasn't said that about any of the proposals working their way through Congress, and I don't know if the CBO has even scored any of the GOP proposals. Obama and the Democrats might as well promise brand new ponies as part of their proposals.
Steve,
Please explain how tort liability reform will cut costs. Can you cite to credible sources that show how much tort liability increases costs?
Moreover, given that Obama nevertheless put tort reform on the table, why aren't the GOP offering any concessions in return? Why did GOP members of the Gang of 6 say they were negotiating with Baucus, et. al., then immediately turn around and say that they wouldn't vote for their own compromise bill? That's who the Democrats should be trying to cut a deal with?
I'm also waiting for an explanation, not necessarily from Steve, as to why the profit motive is so sancrosanct and needs to be incorporated in health care reform. The profit motive is a huge part of the problem...
Mike Lamb:
Please explain how tort liability reform will cut costs. Can you cite to credible sources that show how much tort liability increases costs?
In theory and in a nutshell, tort liability reform could lower the amounts malpractice insurance providers will estimate they have to pay out in malpractice suits. This could allow malpractice insurance providers to lower premium prices in order to better compete with each other. Lower premiums paid by doctors will lower those costs that are passed on to consumers. Plus, there will potentially be less of a need to practice overly defensive medicine which is estimated to cost $60 billion every year. It's also why tort liability reform isn't the only, and is definitely not the most important, reform Republicans have proposed; other reform measures would need to be enacted as well, although not necessarily all at the same time.
Moreover, given that Obama nevertheless put tort reform on the table,...
He paid the idea lip service, nothing more. Congressional Democrats haven't come close to agreeing to this. As far as the Gang of 6 abandoning Baucus, maybe it's because his plan raises taxes on everyone and cuts Medicare.
I'm also waiting for an explanation, not necessarily from Steve, as to why the profit motive is so sancrosanct and needs to be incorporated in health care reform. The profit motive is a huge part of the problem...
Capitalism and competition. It's a system proven to lower costs and make technological advances. Adding only one more competitor, the federal government, won't increase competition, especially since not only will the federal government compete with private industry, but sets the rules (having an umpire be the member of one of two teams).
Steve,
Are you one of the people, then, that thinks allowing insurers to sell across state lines, thereby permitting Blue Cross, for example, to drop each state affiliated subsidiary, would increase competition? Wouldn't that be akin to the reverse of splitting Ma Bell into the Baby Bells?
By the way, your explanation of tort liability reform says it all--"in theory". I looked at a couple of the proposals in your link. Tort reform was mentioned as one of the prominent aspects of the bills. Tort reform is simply a corporate hand out.
Finally, Grassley, et. al., said they wouldn't vote for the bill that they themselves were trying to negotiate. That was long before Baucus actually introduced a bill. How is that negotiating in good faith?
Mike Lamb:
Are you one of the people, then, that thinks allowing insurers to sell across state lines, thereby permitting Blue Cross, for example, to drop each state affiliated subsidiary, would increase competition? Wouldn't that be akin to the reverse of splitting Ma Bell into the Baby Bells?
The answer to if I'm "one of the people" is yes. So what if Blue Cross drops their subsidiaries? Who says they would anyway? Dropping subsidiaries will cost BC money, and they may find that it is to their financial advantage to do something else, like sell those subsidiaries to someone else. Which answers your second question, it is likely to be more like the Ma Bell breakup that did spawn a whole lot of competition.
By the way, your explanation of tort liability reform says it all--"in theory".
Again, so? It's all theory, a guess. Like the theory that Obama and the leftists have been spewing, that an increase to government's already near-50% involvement in health "reform" will lead to improved health care, expand medical technology, and greatly cut costs. The government can't even cut the fraud out of the current system, so the idea is to expand the system and potentially increase the fraud?
Tort reform is simply a corporate hand out.
As opposed to what it is now, a handout to lawyers? I don't even mean lawyers involved in representing potential victims of malpractice, but those representing the defendants.
Finally, Grassley, et. al., said they wouldn't vote for the bill that they themselves were trying to negotiate. That was long before Baucus actually introduced a bill. How is that negotiating in good faith?
Maybe it's because those Democrats he was negotiating with before the Baucus bill weren't the ones negotiating in good faith.
Capitalism and competition. It's a system proven to lower costs and make technological advances.
Except that it hasn't. The cost of health care is outpacing inflation. Countries that have the dreaded government interference still manage to make technological advances, provide better care and avoid bankrupting people.
This could allow malpractice insurance providers to lower premium prices in order to better compete with each other.
The key phrase here is "could". I bet the insurance companies are spending all that lobbying dough because they are dying to lower costs (i.e. profits). And since you guys love to play this game, show me where the Constitution allows the government to set limits on the amount an individual can sue for. Sounds pretty Big Brother Nazi socialist to me.
Obama and the Democrats might as well promise brand new ponies as part of their proposals.
And what did your party accomplish in its 12 years of House rule and 8 of total dominance in all 3 branches. Please point out the tireless Republican congressmen who never gave up on reforming health care. Show us all the many speeches President Bush made urging us to work on this problem. Show us at least one tenth the effort the Democrats are putting into this
The fact is, they did diddly-squat. Now more and more people are going bankrupt and more and more companies are struggling to pay the higher costs for their employees. It has become the number one drag on our economy and the Republicans did absolutely nothing to address it except cobble together a craptacular plan at the last minute.
You can keep writing out your long posts on how the "Leftists really do make a living out of excuses, don't they?" but the evidence shows quite the reverse. Republicans have sided with the insurance companies on every issue. The result is epitomized in the pathetic town hall performance by Cantor. Why didn't he just paraphrase Dickens with a "are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?". It would have been much more honest.
Actually, allowing the insurers to operate across state lines is going to require federal standards for health insurance. Those standards will, of course, have to be set by Congress, which means they'll end up being a lot closer to the standards in Texas, South Dakota, and Georgia than those in New York, California, or Minnesota.
States with stronger protections for the individual will see them gutted. Won't that be nice -- for the companies.
Also, appeals will be to a federal agency, which will be a lot easier to load with industry-friendly arbitrators than 50 state agencies.
Result: a big win for corporate health insurance providers. A trough-fest of epic proportions will ensue as smaller companies are devoured by larger.
And, in the end, a further descent into the new feudalism, where corporations take the place of the old demesnes, and where "government" is simply a means of protecting our corporate overlords from the wrath of a downtrodden lower class.
Oh, and SteveAR? In order to determine whether someone is negotiating in good faith, one could look at their past positions and compare them with the current positions, or look at whether they are spreading falsehoods rather than adhering to the facts.
By either criterion, Grassley is not negotiating in good faith.
Steve said:
My acquaintance's out-of-pocket expenses were 95% of one year's pay. Yet, she paid the bill and didn't go bankrupt.
One minute she doesn't have the resources, and the next minute she paid 95% of 1 year's salary. In order to have any relevance, you need to explain how. Did she win the lotto? Take out a 2nd mortgage? Move back home with her parents and rent the house out for a year?
Good on her for doing so, but unless she did so using the means and resources that are available to everyone equally, your point is irrelevant.
Steve,
In what world is removing a barrier to corporate consolidation likely to create more competition? Blue Cross of Arizona and California and New York would simply become Blue Cross. People would be "negotiating" with a single conglomerate that serves the entire nation--do you think that increases the consumers' leverage?
Re: tort liability--the problem is that there has been absolutely no correlation between health care costs and tort liability payouts. The "theory" is bunk.
So Baucus acquiesces to a number of GOP concerns; he goes along with the number one GOP point--we need to slow down--and THEN Grassley makes public statements that he won't vote for the bill that he CONTINUES TO NEGOTIATE--and from that we get the "up is down" conclusion that Dems are not negotiating in good faith? Seriously, where is the logic?
Frankie:
Take out a 2nd mortgage?
Home equity line. She used the same resources available as the woman in the video.
Anonymous:
"Capitalism and competition. It's a system proven to lower costs and make technological advances."
Except that it hasn't.
Sure it has. In every sector where capitalism is allowed to flourish without overreaching government interference, you get lower costs, better service, better products, and faster and better technological advances. Look at Lasik surgery; it isn't covered by insurance, public or private, and it's cost have gone way down, thus making it more available, and has improved as technology improves.
The problem is that the various levels of government have made a mess of what health insurance should cover, thus wrecking the reason for having insurance, to pay for medical care the woman in the video needs, not every single time someone stubs a toe or gets a headache.
Mike Lamb:
In what world is removing a barrier to corporate consolidation likely to create more competition? Blue Cross of Arizona and California and New York would simply become Blue Cross.
Again, so? Besides, BC of AZ and BC of CA are still part of BC the corporation. What's different is that a company in AZ would be able to insure people in CA or NY instead of having to set up HQs in those states.
Re: tort liability--the problem is that there has been absolutely no correlation between health care costs and tort liability payouts. The "theory" is bunk.
$60 billion a year in potentially unnecessary health care costs seems to show some sort of correlation, don't you think?
Most working people get their insurance through their employers. But companies are still laying off people in droves, leaving them vulnerable, like the woman in the video. So it would probably be a better idea for the government to set the conditions to allow the private sector to employ people again. Porkulus isn't even close to doing the job since it had nothing to do with fixing the economy. So maybe it's time to dump Porkulus, keep the Bush tax cuts, and cut business and corporate taxes further so that companies will hire again, lowering unemployment and getting people insured. Then the Obama/Pelosi/Reid government can work on ruining health care.
SteveAR,
Assuming an unemployed person can even get a loan against current equity (and that it would cover the cost, which is doubtful), how will they pay it back? Get another home equity loan to pay back the first? Use credit cards?
Actually, supporting the elderly is something that capitalism failed utterly to do. Hence, we have Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare.
Actually, I'd like to disagree with A.L.'s title. The Republicans and their "conservative" fellow travelers have an answer for those in desperate need. "Get down on your knees and beg, sucker. Beg from your friends, your family, your church (and you'd better belong to one), from strangers in the street. Give up all hope of a life free from debt and servitude. Or die. We don't care which."
They just don't want to say it straight out, because it would play very poorly with the general population, who, to a great extent, actually care about their fellow humans. So instead, they play on fear and paranoia, which, sadly, is something far too many people suffer from.
Home equity line. She used the same resources available as the woman in the video.
I'm no expert on mortgage loans, but i would imagine that not having a job would make it pretty difficult for the woman referenced in the video to secure a home equity loan. But maybe not - i don't know.
Either way, your point is as inane as most of your points are. For all you know, "owning her own home" could mean she has $5000 equity on it. I'm guessing that's not 95% of 1 year's income. She could already have a home equity loan being used to pay her husband's health care bill. Or putting her kids through college.
So basically, you have no idea what you're talking about when you say she has the same resources as your acquaintance. Never mind the fact that you seemed to have missed the part about how she lost her job.
And beyond that, 95% of 1 year's pay is a pretty vague cost. For all we know your friend's bill could have been no more than $8000 while the bill of the woman in the video could be $45,000. And you seem to be suggesting that having a debt of *only* 95% of 1 year's pay should pretty much preclude anyone from filing bankruptcy. Because hey, your friend managed her way out of it.
And those are only the arguments against your comparison to the woman in the video. Compared to the population at large, your point is even dumber.
Your incapacity to comprehend, or give a damn about, the plight of others is very telling Steve. People like you, in spite of their incessant claims of patriotism, are not the one's who make this a great country.
Steve,
So you think "Mom and Pop Insurance, Inc." in AZ would be able to compete with Blue Cross if only restrictions on being able to sell across state lines? Really? How are small companies only capable of operating in one state suddenly going to get the capital/resources to go the multi-state route?
The $60 Billion in "defensive medicine" is beyond speculative. And furthermore, it's not like Doctors don't benefit from "unnecessary" tests/procedures. Given the profit motive, are you really suggesting that doctors would start cutting into their bottom line because of tort liability reform?
And while I don't want to let you attempt to derail this thread, your idea that we should keep Bush economic policies in place under which we saw a drop in median household income, a rise in poverty rates, a rise in child poverty, and less people with health care strikes me as insane. But feel free to rail about the stimulus even though there is mounting evidence (including a stroy in the WSJ) suggesting that gov't intervention has been instrumental in (hopefully) turning the recession around in shorter order than would have been without said intervention. Let's just forget all that in favor of "failed" economic policies...
Home equity line. She used the same resources available as the woman in the video.
What a brilliant solution! And if she should lose her job or need further medical treatment, why she can sell matches out on the snowy boulevard (resources no doubt available to the woman in the video).
The problem is that the various levels of government have made a mess of what health insurance should cover, thus wrecking the reason for having insurance, to pay for medical care the woman in the video needs, not every single time someone stubs a toe or gets a headache.
Huh? Show me where the government tells insurance companies what to cover. Seems like your "flourishing capitalism" allows them to decide who and what to cover along with the economic freedom to rescind a policy for whatever pre-existing condition they uncover, like acne.
And damn those stubbed toe, headachy patients that are clogging up our hospitals. They'll be happy to know that Lasik surgery can be even more affordable than ever, if only we pass more tax cuts!
'Tort reform is simply a corporate hand out.'
Not necessarily. Not everyone arguing in favor of tort reform is a corporate drone. Dr. Ron Chusid of Liberal Values (worth a look, it used to be in AL's links but appears to have vanished, liberalvaluesblog.com) speaks very cogently on the issue of tort reform from a viewpoint very different than that of the insurance companies and is certainly no friend of the insurance industry.
Dr. Chusid is pro-tort reform... and he is also very clear that it probably won't do much to lower health care costs in the short term and the long-term effects on costs will probably not be what conservatives are predicting. He is very clear that he is in favor of tort reform anyway, because he believes the current malpractice system is ineffective in addressing real problems and too open to abuse, but he does not believe it will magically solve the health care problem.
I don't completely agree with Dr. Chusid, as I believe the courts serve a useful purpose in the process, but that isn't the point. The point is that not every argument in favor of tort reform is from the right, based on the magic savings it will bestow. There are those who genuinely wish tort reform because they feel it is needed.
"So maybe it's time to dump Porkulus, keep the Bush tax cuts, and cut business and corporate taxes further so that companies will hire again, lowering unemployment and getting people insured. Then the Obama/Pelosi/Reid government can work on ruining health care." Steve AR
So, now we come to the heart of Steve's world view. In spite of all that recent history teaches us, he clings to a Supply Side, starve the beast, laissez faire capitolistic economic view. The problem with lowering all those taxes Steve, is that it does have impacts all over the place, and not good ones. As but one example, tax cuts and two wars are why the federal government has an unsustainable deficit of $700 Billion right at the moment. That deficit is a huge economic drag, and has not been off set by any sort of long term job creation or economic growth - in spite of lots of conservative rhetoric.
As to the stimulus package not creating jobs - please stop parroting RNC Chair Michael Steele. To the person receiving the paycheck, it is not really a matter of the origin of the job - its a matter of getting paid and supporting a family. Like it or not, Government at all levels creates jobs by creating demand for goods and services. The people filling that demand then in turn create demand for other goods and services - this is how the economy grows, and why the Stimulus bill was necessary.
So Steve, while you may well have drunk the Social Darwinist Koolaid, the rest of us haven't. Your party's ideas were SOUNDLY rejected in the last election, and while they are offering things, most of what's coming out of their mouths these days is not new. Its not fresh, and its not helpful. I can understand not liking the situation - I wasn't a particular fan of Mr. Reagan, Mr. Bush, or Mr. Bush. But unless and until you actually have something fresh to offer, please go sit in the corner, lick your wounds, and watch how the rest of your fellow citizens are trying (against huge odds) to actually change things for our Nation.
Frankie:
For all you know, "owning her own home" could mean she has $5000 equity on it. I'm guessing that's not 95% of 1 year's income. She could already have a home equity loan being used to pay her husband's health care bill. Or putting her kids through college.
Excuse me but my supposedly "inane" points were in response to A.L.'s ridiculous point that the woman in the video has ONLY two options: suffering without medical care or bankruptcy. That's it. Does A.L. know this woman? I have no idea. If he doesn't, how can he possibly know that there are ONLY two options for this woman, and every other American for that matter? How do you? I know I would never admit there are only a fixed number of options available to all Americans; no one individual does. My point wasn't that my acquaintance found another option that could be available to the woman in the video, one A.L. doesn't seem to think exists.
Philip H:
As but one example, tax cuts and two wars are why the federal government has an unsustainable deficit of $700 Billion right at the moment.
And yet, Obama and Congressional Democrats have, and will continue to seek, to greatly expand that deficit and the debt. By the way, you may want to get your numbers straight; at the end of Bush's Presidency, the budget deficit (not the debt) was around $400 billion. Since Obama took office eight months ago, the deficit jumped over 4 times that amount. So you can forget that whole "blame Bush" garbage because it simply isn't true.
As to the stimulus package not creating jobs - please stop parroting RNC Chair Michael Steele.
Maybe it's you who should stop parroting Obama and Biden. I don't need to parrot Steele; all I have to do is see the current and estimated unemployment figures to see that Porkulus is an expensive bust. If anything, it's draining the budget because private firms, the ones that actually make the goods government (which doesn't manufacture anything, which means it can't increase the supply of what is manufactured) uses, aren't hiring; and the government, in its infinite insanity, is expanding unemployment outlays while doing nothing to help those people get back to work. Porkulus was an unnecessary, and unnecessarily expensive, waste.
Your party's ideas were SOUNDLY rejected in the last election, and while they are offering things, most of what's coming out of their mouths these days is not new.
As opposed to whom, Democrats? "Tax the rich, tax the rich". That's all I've heard coming out of their pieholes for 40 years. That and "the government should solve this problem or that problem". Well, Democrats, and some Republicans, have been trying to do that, and things aren't any better. Besides, most Americans do reject that argument, despite leftists' attempt to spin otherwise. It wasn't that Republican ideas were rejected, but that Republicans were rejected for being stupid and corrupt. But instead of electing those who could run a responsible government, they ended up with Democrats who are more stupid and far more corrupt. Porkulus, any Democrat health "reform", and cap-and-tax are the embodiment of both since none of those actually resolves the two problems that critically need solving, the financial mess and unemployment. Obama and the Dems are Bush and the Republicans on steroids.
SteveAR said... And yet, Obama and Congressional Democrats have, and will continue to seek, to greatly expand that deficit and the debt. By the way, you may want to get your numbers straight; at the end of Bush's Presidency, the budget deficit (not the debt) was around $400 billion...
Unfortunately, as real economists understand, it is necessary to replace lost demand when the economy tanks as it has after years of Republican mismanagement.
As for comparing deficit to debt, understand that the 'deficit' is a fudged number. It includes as just one example, the Social Security surplus. That is why serious students look to the increase in national debt for accurate numbers on a president's policies.
If you use official figures from http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np
you will see that George W. Bush increased the National debt from 5 trillion at the beginning of his term to just over 10 trillion at the end of the last fiscal year under his watch. If you extent to include the time to the end of his term in January, you will have to include his massive gift of billions to banks. There the total debt topped 11 trillion.
It is amazing, but Bush managed to mismanage the American economy even worse than Reagan.
Mike
As opposed to whom, Democrats? "Tax the rich, tax the rich". That's all I've heard coming out of their pieholes for 40 years. That and "the government should solve this problem or that problem". Well, Democrats, and some Republicans, have been trying to do that, and things aren't any better.
Yeah, let's eliminate taxes for the rich; they've suffered enough! And phooey on government problem solving. Bush demonstrated that it was too difficult when all those folks choose to have a home on the Gulf Coast during a hurricane.
Your party had 8 years to reveal the true economic magic of tax cuts. We got sluggish growth and wages, a giant increase in income disparity between the very rich and the rest of us, huge government debt and economic collapse. A fabulous outcome that you want to blame on the Democrats.
I'm hearing something but I don't think it's coming from a piehole.
So, now we come to the heart of Steve's world view. In spite of all that recent history teaches us, he clings to a Supply Side, starve the beast, laissez faire capitolistic economic view.
You can't refute a theology. In the old days, they didn't bother -- that's what the stake, the kindling and the box full of an early version of kitchen matches were for.
So this excerpt from ABC's The Note indicates that you are right:
"During last year's campaign, then-Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., opposed an individual mandate. In fact, he clashed repeatedly with Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., his future Secretary of State, on this issue.
Since becoming president, however, he has switched his stance and now shares Clinton's view that an individual mandate is necessary in order to achieve new federal protections for individuals with pre-existing conditions.
Pointing to experience at the state level, the insurance industry and other health-care experts persuaded Obama that insurers could not go along with a guanteed issue policy without knowing that all adults would be forced into the system.
Insurers say that if you have guaranteed issue -- which means no discrimination on the basis of pre-existing conditions -- without an individual mandate, people will wait until they become sick to buy insurance and the system will fail due to a lack of risk sharing."
Even with a mandate, the opportunities for strategic behavior and cost-shifting seem pretty enormous to me. People will have every incentive to avoid getting insurance (or get the minimum possible coverage)until they get sick. Meanwhile, the insurers are bound to look for ways to discourage the already sick from buying their insurance. If there ends up being a public option, I predict that everyone with pre-existing conditions ends up there.
we should stop debating right wingers about healthcare, period. we have the majority, let's get this done. no more olive branches. no more calls for "bi partisanship", those times should now be over. we won. engaging the right is a waste of time, how can we have a debate with people's imaginations?
'Since becoming president, however, he has switched his stance and now shares Clinton's view that an individual mandate is necessary in order to achieve new federal protections for individuals with pre-existing conditions.'
It should be noted that this is not strictly true and that ABC did not correctly report what the president actually said. The president said that an individual mandate might be necessary for a bill to pass Congress. He said he'd sign any bill that passed Congress, if it met his requirements for universal coverage that met quality standards. That meant if Congress chose to incorporate an individual mandate in a bill he would sign the bill if it otherwise satisfied him. All the kind of pragmatic approach to policy one might expect.
He also said he didn't like the individual mandate and he defended the public option. He simply said that anything was negotiable as long as the bill met his standards of coverage and quality.
ABC (and everyone else in the media) over-reported the 'everything is negotiable' very heavily and under-reported the rest of what the president said egregiously.
I think the president may be wrong in saying that everything is negotiable, but it's important to include all of what he said in proper context.
I think the president may be wrong in saying that everything is negotiable, but it's important to include all of what he said in proper context.
No no no. Doing that just gets the media accused of being liberal.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home