Joe Lieberman just three months ago.
Joe Lieberman now.
From Ezra Klein at the Washington Post:
The Huffington Post and Roll Call are both reporting that Joe Lieberman notified Harry Reid that he will filibuster health-care reform if the final bill includes an expansion of Medicare. Previously, Lieberman had been cool to the idea, saying he wanted to make sure it wouldn't increase the deficit or harm Medicare's solvency (and previously to that, he supported it as part of the Gore/Lieberman health-care plan). That comforted some observers, as the CBO is expected to say it will do neither. Someone must have given Lieberman a heads-up on that, as he's decided to make his move in advance of the CBO score, the better to ensure the facts of the policy couldn't impede his opposition to it.
To put this in context, Lieberman was invited to participate in the process that led to the Medicare buy-in. His opposition would have killed it before liberals invested in the idea. Instead, he skipped the meetings and is forcing liberals to give up yet another compromise. Each time he does that, he increases the chances of the bill's failure that much more. And if there's a policy rationale here, it's not apparent to me, or to others who've interviewed him. At this point, Lieberman seems primarily motivated by torturing liberals. That is to say, he seems willing to cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in order to settle an old electoral score.
Joe, what you do is despicable. If the Democrats don't strip you of your committee leadership positions, then they are even more craven than I believed. You are of absolutely no use to the Democratic Party - none, zero.
Apropos of absolutely nothing, I checked and found, as I expected, that the Israelis have state medical insurance. One law....
ReplyDeleteVerification "bilion". When's Google going to use spell check?
That corporate whore.
ReplyDeleteI pretty much said the same thing in my post yesterday. This guy just laid on the tracks and let that grudge train just keep running over him... just keep running over him.
ReplyDeleteProblems. . . .
ReplyDeleteAs Robert Samuelson, staff economics writer at "Newsweek", wrote a few months back, what the DEMS in Congress are proposing is not "real reform." It is an expansion of the health care insurance system without a reform of the health care system. Reform will control cost and contain them. . .the Senate and the House aren't up to doing this. The bills they are providing will add massive amounts to the debt despite CBO numbers that come out tomorrow. . .CBO numbers are projections, not formulaic indicators. They are predictions that will rely upon the politicians following through on the proposed cuts and "savings" they say they have found. REALLY?
The Medicare expansion Joe is against purports to increase the number of people in the system and then cut its budget by $500 billion. Does this make sense?
The economist Samuelson is telling the truth. We need real health care reform. Instead we have an orchestrated political mirage.
Jim, I have not read Samuelson. What is his idea for health care reform?
ReplyDeleteWhat the Dems are proposing is not real reform. Real reform would be a single payer system, which I wanted from the beginning. Both the weak public option and the buy-in-to-Medicare are crap bills which would not extend insurance to everyone, may curb some of the more draconian exclusions by insurance companies, while at the same time fattening their already huge profit margins, and would not lower costs.
What is "Holy Joe"'s solution?
The rest of the developed world (and a growing portion of the developing world) appears to have mastered this issue far better than we have.
ReplyDeleteOur current system is the most expensive in the world with the least amount of benefit for the price.
To me, the solution is obvious and simple: expand Medicare to cover everyone. It's a single payer system and a better one than either Canada's or the UK's. If people want private insurance as a supplement or as a substitute, they could buy it for themselves. Instead of penalizing people for being uninsured, they could just be automatically enrolled in the program, and find their own if they don't like universal Medicare.
The only reason it's complicated is because the anti-trust law exempt health insurance industry and Big Pharma are very powerful and must be appeased. They appear to be powerful enough to veto the voters. They've certainly been powerful enough to write their own regulatory legislation (to benefit themselves and to disadvantage any competition).
As to the cost, it would be far less in the end than the premiums we and employers pay for Cigna and the Blues.
ReplyDeleteIt's all about Joe and not one ounce about the common good. I pray my parents did not vote for him!
ReplyDeleteI can hardly stand to look at Joe or listen to him with his long-suffering, "poor me" demeanor and whiney voice.
ReplyDeleteMimi -- so say we all.
ReplyDeleteMy husband is threatening to contribute to the Republican who runs against Joe if that's necessary to defeat him.
I'll just contribute to the real Democrat.
Susan, Lieberman is just, in the words of Molly Ivins, "Dancing with them as brung him". He won re-election in 2006 only because he received substantial Republican support. In the election Lieberman got 50% of the vote; his Democratic opponent, Ned Lamont, 40%, and the Republican candidate, Alan Schlesinger, came third, with just 10%, on account of the droves of Republicans who crossed party lines and voted for Lieberman. Lieberman returned the favor. Remember his 2008 "Citizens for McCain"? And his speech to last year's Republican convention? The man's not going to forget who really re-elected him, He's a Trojan Horse. Get your husband to do the same as you and contribute to a real Democrat.
ReplyDeleteReal reform would not be a single payer system in a nation our size. It would wreck the quality of health care. Real reform begins with cost containment and cost control and with measures to preserve the present quality of American health care. Samuelson's piece in Newsweek was a critique. He did not offer a detailed alternative. . .but a real alternative would obviously begin with containing costs. It makes no sense to bring in 39 million or more people into a "health insurance" system and then do nothing about costs until afterwards. Samuelson's critique is that of an alert economist not a partisan politico. The present plans in Congress and politically driven. They are not well planned. The truth that we are not being is that if the current House or Senate plan passes we will as be paying more and getting less is terms of health care. That is the simple fact of the matter.
ReplyDeleteTo think I wanted him as VP.
ReplyDeleteThe "common good" is hardly being represented in the Democrat bills in the Senate and the House. The simple fact of the matter is that these plans will result in us paying more and getting less. . .quality will suffer. . .waiting times will increase. . .the time spent with a personal physician will drop drastically. There are better alternatives. But the politicos want their victory at any cost.
ReplyDeleteJim, please answer one question before we continue our discussion. Do you think everyone in the country has a right to health care?
ReplyDeleteAnyone who needs medical treatment has a right to receive it. A question for you: Do you think that the pending legislation will mean that Americans will pay more for health care and get less of it?
ReplyDeleteJim, my priority is to give everyone access to health care, and not only at the point when they are in desperate need for ER treatment. Do you understand that? How can we give everyone health care coverage?
ReplyDeleteIf we must tax the rich and stop fighting unnecessary foreign wars to achieve that, then yes, I believe we must do that. Health care is a right, and it is shameful that we are the only major industrialized that doesn't have universal health care.
I've already said that the impending legislation is crap, OK? You don't agree, but I believe that we need a single payer system that covers everyone. How do we do this? That is my priority. That's where I start from. I want our leaders to make that happen.
Amen to Susan S. and Mimi...
ReplyDeleteJoe is a prick and we need a single payer system that covers everyone. I am sick of hearing, "I don't want to pay for (insert underprivileged or minority group here)'s health care." If we were ever a Christian nation, like the fundangelicals like to claim, then we would follow the words of Matthew 25. Instead we are a nation of Pharisees that are more concerned with morality and legality than we are with the state of our neighbors.
Actually, it is ironic to come here to find "ad hominem" attacks on someone. Looks like some ideological blinders are on. . .opps, guess they legitimate "righteous indignation." Or is that just self-righteousness that is not self-critical??
ReplyDeleteBrian Doherty has picked up on this theme in his article: http://reason.com/archives/2009/12/09/progressives-democracy-health/
The current "health care reform legislation" is more honestly about the health insurance system than about controlling the rising costs of health care. In other words, it is not true health care reform. It redistributes insurance coverage from those who have a good deal of it to those who do not. It does not directly address medical treatment issues of the poor. There are other ways of addressing this problem...the way to start is with real reform.
BTW, some seem to believe that the Pharmaceutical industry is opposed to the Senate legislation. Actually, the major lobbyists for the Drug industry are backing it.
Mimi, this is a bad bill. There are better ways of providing primary care treatment to the poor. A single payer system in a nation of our size and diversity would be even worse than the current bill.
I'm so disappointed in who he has become.
ReplyDeleteMimi, this is a bad bill.
ReplyDeleteYes, it is. Why do you continue to repeat this when I agree?
There are better ways of providing primary care treatment to the poor.
Tell me how. Also, tell me the better ways to cover middle class folks who can't get coverage or who can't afford coverage. It's not just about the poor. Millions of working folks lack coverage or are underinsured. Tell me how we can find a way that will prevent people from going bankrupt from medical bills. That we allow 700,000 bankruptcies per year in the richest country in the world is shameful. Other industrialized countries have zero bankruptcies due to medical bills.
A single payer system in a nation of our size and diversity would be even worse than the current bill.
That is simply your opinion. I disagree. Let's hear your solutions, Jim.
And Lieberman should go where he belongs - to the Republican Party. The reason he doesn't go, is that he would wield zero influence. He'd be simply one of the crowd.
Given the current fiscal situation, a single payer situation is beyond our means. So is the present Senate bill is assessed realistically. Again...and again....the place to start is with "real reform" which means finding mechanisms to contain rising costs. The pending legislation does not do that. A single payer system would not do that either. It would bankrupt the country. . .and is fiscally irresponsible. The articles is Reason magazine....which are referenced is the article I cited. . . .the issue of more affordable insurance for the middle class is addressed in those articles as are other issues. However, the issue of sacrificing the quality of the present system and the issue of increased health care costs for those currently insured are issues that you seem to be evading. The plain fact of the matter is that if either the House or Senate bill passes, then we will be be paying more and getting less health care than we are now.
ReplyDeleteI believe all people of good will desire improvements in America's health delivery system. However, it takes more than ad hominem denunciations of Joe Lieberman to establish that the current legislation will actually deliver on those improvements. Only about 40% of the American people currently support it. I think many sense that they are not being given the straight story. . .at least Joe said no to a fiscally unsound proposal.
Ad hominem is no the same as invalid. The man's a shill.
ReplyDeleteHe's provided nothing at all in this debate. You may try to shut down legitimate - and legitimately-angry - criticism of Lieberman, who has consistently failed to produce anything in place of what he destroys by implying it is invalid, but it won't help.
Until Lieberman and his backers can offer a better way, and all they can do is strike down the options others crafted, they have no right to expect to be treated as leaders, as visionaries, or as responsible stewards of this nation's interest.
Step down, Lieberman. Epic fail.
the issue of sacrificing the quality of the present system and the issue of increased health care costs for those currently insured are issues that you seem to be evading.
ReplyDeleteNo. What YOU are evading, Jim, is this:
You want YOUR excellent healthcare, and you aren't willing to give up anything so that others can have access to care.
Personally, I'm not willing to keep my top-quality healthcare if it means others have no care at all. And I'm willing to pay more in taxes so that EVERYONE can have care. To me, that's a Gospel imperative. And Joe Lieberman--who also claims to be a person of faith--needs to be reminded that the Hebrew Bible is chock full of commands to take care of the poor and the sick.
I do agree with you that this is a bad bill, and that we have focused on health INSURANCE reform, rather than health CARE reform. But it's the underlying premise of your argument---that insuring top quality care for those who already have it is more important than providing basic care to all--that i reject.
Doxy
Freudian slip---that should have been "ensuring"....
ReplyDeleteJim, you've said what won't work. What will work? What is your plan? Are you a Republican? The Republicans' only plan is to say no, and that's what you've done in the discussion here.
ReplyDeleteI'm not in favor of the current health insurance bill.
ReplyDeleteAs far as I'm concerned, it's a big give away to the insurance industry. People will be legally mandated to buy insurance, but there will be no meaningful way to help people pay for it. It's like the states that require driver's liability insurance, but provide no assistance to those who can't pay for it (liability insurance in states like New Jersey and New York is very expensive). These states have criminalized the problem without solving it. Legal or not, they still have a lot of uninsured drivers on the road.
So too, if the bill in its current form passes, it will solve nothing. There will still be millions of uninsured out there, only now they will be illegal and subject to fines on top of hefty insurance premiums with no meaningful help to pay for any of it.
The current bill is a bonanza for the insurance industry. Now everyone will be legally required to buy their product.
I don't buy the argument that there is no money for universal health insurance or a single payer system. There's always plenty of money to bail out the financial industry, plenty of money to subsidize the oil and auto industries, and there's always money for Freedom Bombs over the Middle East. We're just too busy giving away money to people who already have trainloads of it to bother with cutting a break to the people whose work creates that wealth.
Frankly, I don't expect to see any kind of meaningful health insurance reform in my lifetime. We've been at this issue since the days of Theodore Roosevelt with precious little progress to show for it. All of the nations of the developed world are way ahead of us, and will remain so. Their systems are not perfect, but they deliver so much more to their people for so much less than our system. Japan, Canada, Switzerland, Sweden, France, and Israel in their own different ways have finessed the issue of access to health care far more successfully than we have.
The Netherlands, the country that gave the world rich cholesterol filled cheeses, now had the world's healthiest (and tallest) people.
So, what's our problem?
Word verification "torchor," indeed!
I wonder if the legions of people sitting waiting for hours in public clinics to see a "nurse technician," or wait for hours with injuries and illnesses in the emergency rooms of public hospitals (like Bellevue here in New York) really worry about any kind of "decline" in the quality of health care for those lucky few who still get premium coverage.
ReplyDeleteA very revealing experience is to visit the waiting room of the NYU Dental School in Manhattan. It's always packed with people waiting to be seen by dental students. And most of that crowd waiting to see them is not poor (quite the contrary).
Later I may post to my blog what my idea for a single payor system should look like, but I think we could model it after the VA's formula...
ReplyDelete1. All people are covered for basic care. Doctors, nurses and administrative persons become salaried employees of the federal government and on the same scale as current federal employees working in the VA and Indian Affairs systems.
2. Set co-pay thresholds based on income. Those that make under a certain amount are not billed a co-pay for their visits, while those that are pay a set co-pay (say $15 for Primary Care visits and $50 for specialties). Set a second lower threshold for medication co-pays. Those who make under this second threshold would not have to pay for prescriptions, while those that are over this would pay a set amount.
Elective surgeries, such as liposuction, tummy tucks, breast augmentations, penile implants, etc. would not be covered under this system.
cont.
ReplyDelete3. Set a payroll tax to subsidize this. Using a system similar to Germany's, have the employee pay in say 5% of his income and the employer match that amount dollar for dollar.
4. Private insurance would then be used mainly to pay the co-pays of the single payor system or for elective surgeries like those outlined in #2.
There is a great deal of tweaking that can be done to this system, and probably a bit I have not thought of, but this is the start of my solution. At least it's something
I'm no expert, but Arkansas Hillbilly's plan looks good to me. The VA has a good system.
ReplyDeleteIt's definitely better than what's going through the Congressional sausage mill now.
Speaking of not-being-able-to-afford-universal-coverage, the Washington Post reports today that the Feds gave Citigroup (the same folks who played roulette with our money and lost) a massive tax break worth billions. Meanwhile, according to today's NY Times, the mayor of Pittsburgh is proposing a plan to tax college students on their tuition payments.
ReplyDeleteCounterlight, welfare for corporations is ALWAYS a good thing. I like Hillbilly's plan, too. I also like Medicare. Allowing younger, healthier people in Medicare would make it better. No need to set up a whole new bureaucracy.
ReplyDeleteJim, I'm waiting to hear your plan.
Doxy: I haven't been asked to give up my "excellent health care" so that others may have access. The politicos who are managing the debate are magically pretending that the present quality and quantity of health care will remain the same. So your beef is with them. I decry their lack of honesty. In all honesty, present legislation will have us paying more and getting less and we are not being told that by the politicos in control. However, the 60% of the American people who are against the plan (all Republicans?? REALLY??) know that.
ReplyDeleteMimi, it's not my job to "have a plan" to fix the health care fiasco since I am not a member of Congress. Ironically, having a "plan" does not appear to be a job that many members of Congress have since virtually none of them know what is in this anonymous 2,000 plus secretly written and negotiated piece of "legislation." There are many proposals for real health care reform out there. Of course, they are not part of the secret 2,000 page bill. Some have been offered by John Mackey, CEO and co-founder of Whole Foods. Others have been offered by economists and health care policy wonks. The plans lower the cost of health care, increase availability. Most use market mechanisms to achieve these ends. However, all these plans are aware that federal government subsidizing of health insurance. . .with no real effort to control rising costs. . .is futile.
Expanding Medicare and leaving it at that (as a single payer system) is not wise. On the one hand one greatly expands the pool of those covered and on the other hand one slashes the benefits available. Mimi, explain how that works. No wonder less than 40% of the American people support present Congressional proposals. And a nation of 380 million people can hardly adopt wholesale a health care system used in a smaller European nation. That does not work either.
The major problems in health care are not addressed in the Senate Bill so you guys are slimming Joe to no avail. The bill does not control the rapidly rising costs of medical treatment. And the bill does provide certain means to guarantee medical treatment for the truly poor. Sorry, no "Gospel imperative" here. . .only political boloney.
Jim, then my part in discussing health care policies with you is over. You're right that the present plan does not control costs. We could let folks die in the streets and save a lot of money.
ReplyDeleteDo you work for Joe? I don't like name-calling, but if I was into name-calling, I have several thoughts about Joe, one being that he's a sack of shit, but I would never say that, because I'm not into name calling.
Jim in GA,
ReplyDeleteWe are already "paying more and getting less" with the current system. Dem's in Congress have tried to introduce measures to cut cost. They tried to appoint outside oversight to research which methods work best and are the most cost effective. The Republicans screamed, "Death Pannels". Then they tried to remove waste from the current Medicare system, the Republicans cried, "They're going to cut Medicare benefits for seniors!" I have yet to hear them come up with something besides tort reform and opening the borders for out of state insurance. Texas proves that tort reform is a dead end. They put laws on the books to limit malpractice and their costs have not come down. The "free market" idea of competition does not apply to health insurance companies. There are only two ways they can make a profit, raise rates or don't pay on claims. They do both to record profits. This is why at least a public option is needed to help curb costs.
I put my suggestion out there for a single payer system that might work and covers everyone. It may not be perfect, but it's something to work with.
I don't like the bill and can not support it without the public option. I said in another post that I no longer support it as it stands. I think it needs to die and start from scratch.
Arkansas Hillbilly--I like your plan!
ReplyDeleteSo, Jim--what WOULD you give up so that others can have care?
Sorry, no "Gospel imperative" here. . .only political boloney.
The Gospel imperative to which I refer is the one to care for the least of these. Regardless of whether Congress hews to that, I believe that those of us who call ourselves Christian have a responsibility to push for it.
So just what are you pushing for?
Mimi, redistributing health care away from those who currently receive it. . .in many cases well insured elderly folks in the final years of their lives. . .to youngish folks for primary care. . .is a major component of the "compassionate" Congressional plans. So, you aren't yourself actually asking for people to die in the streets are you?
ReplyDeleteArkansas: no single piece of legislation has been offered that would contain the rising cost of health care. The cornerstone of all the legislation has been to subsidize and mandate (by penalty of law) insurance. The provisions you cite are peripherial to that. We will pay more and get less, because insurance premiums, taxes and costs will go up, while quality and accessibilty will go done. If nothing is done costs will continue to rise. So, we do need real reform not this chimera of government subsidized insurance or a government take-over and wrecking of American health care. Senator Judd Gregg and others have proposed legislation to lower costs without increasing the deficit in his Coverage, Prevention, and Reform proposal.
Doxy: Asking what I as a person would give up is a different question than asking what Congress can coerce citizens to do through the legislative process. The one is an act of conscience. The other is a result of force and compulsion through the agent of an omnicompetent state.
I believe all people of good will. . .and I would not restrict it to Christians (or even to those who had religious beliefs). . .should "push" for quality medical treatment for those who are in need of it. There is NO convincing argument that either the Senate or House plan does this. In fact the Senate plan specifically leaves many out in the cold. . .again, "no Gospel imperative here, only political baloney." But if you think that political opinion making, means you are following a "Gospel imperative," then you can believe that if you want.
As a practicing physician, I don't claim hegemony in suggesting a national health plan(unlike the execrable, millionaire, ex-orthopedic surgeon Tom Price, who leads the know-nothings). However, the regulars on this blog see the real struggle for America's soul: are we for cost control, or do we want to expand coverage for millions of people languishing at the gate? And I practice in an affluent suburb where even upper-middle income families cannot afford (or cannot qualify for) health insurance.While I might personally favor a single-payor system, that isn't going to happen this generation. In fact, Jim and others only trot out the single-payor bogeyman to stifle any discussion of a government OPTION in our future insurance choices. Holy Joe is clearly a chief culprit in this very dishonest "debate".
ReplyDeleteCome the revolution.
"We will pay more and get less, because insurance premiums, taxes and costs will go up, while quality and accessibilty will go down."---Jim in GA
ReplyDeleteAgain, this is what doing nothing will do as well. To really control healthcare costs we need to:
a) eliminate ER visits for non-emergencies. ER visits are the MOST expensive form of healthcare and yet many people are forced into it because they have no insurance and the ER can't turn them away.
b) Expand preventive care. The VA system has proven that preventive care is far less expensive than treating diseases like diabetes, prostate, colon and breast cancer, not to mention the number of lives saved when these diseases are caught in the early stages.
c) Reduce red tape. Currently around 80% of health care costs are administrative. Not just regulatory administrative, such as Joint Commission, but mostly billing and coding. In other words, getting the insurance companies to pony up the money that is owed.
How do we do this? Some form of universal coverage that gives basic health care to all people. This eliminates the top three costs in healthcare, thus brining prices down.
My pappa once said, "the simplest answer is usually the right one".
John D: One doctor friend of mine favored a single-payer system as a means of getting health care to people who didn't get it. Another doctor friend of mine thinks that the "reform" before Congress now and any single payer system would be an unmitigated disaster, leading to fewer physicians covering more patients. So, it seems if we really want to get medical treatment to the poor and control rising medical costs, then the current Congressional plans under debate are irrelevant. The single-payer "bogeyman"? Is it workable in a nation with our population and diversity? In any case, since it appears we cannot afford the current plan, it is hardly likely that we could afford that. There are other alternatives. . .as John Mackey, Michael Munger, Sen. Judd Gregg and others have pointed out.
ReplyDeleteArkansas: preventive care assumes people take active responsibility for their own health. Former smoker have done this. People who lose weight and keep it off do this. That and the streamlining / reduction of duplications in medical record keeping are not "sine qua nons" of "universal care" or any government subsidized health insurance scheme. They can be accomplished by other means. . .even Newt Gingrich has regularly advocated these reforms. Nothing new here. . .and nothing that necessarily links them with a government takeover of the health insurance industry. Again, real health care reform begins not with government subsidizing insurance or tinkering with it, but with cost containment. That is not where the primary focus is in the Senate and House bills.
Well, Jim, you could definitely reduce costs by culling the herd of those who act irresponsibly - the smokers, the drinkers, fat people, people who don;t exercise enough, people who eat too much, people who drive too fast, motorcycle riders, folks who play any sport that involves risk, sky divers, etc., etc., etc. Your arguments are old and tired. Do you truly think you are telling me anything new?
ReplyDeleteI think I've ridden this mule long enough... We seem to be at an impasse. Jim doesn't think we can afford single payer systems, I just showed how we can and he ignored it... This hillbilly's going back to the house... goodnight all.
ReplyDeleteGood-bye Hillbilly. You did good.
ReplyDelete"...preventive care assumes people take active responsibility for their own health"
ReplyDeleteToo bad we can't hold banks and insurance companies to the same standard.
Cutting costs for who, I wonder.
What a depressing thread, an example of why we won't get decent health care reform any time soon. And Jim is one of the "sensible" opponents of health care reform, not one of the crazies whom I encountered at Mary Landrieu's town meeting.
ReplyDeleteMimi, I wasn't the guy who raised saving money through "preventitive care," if you remember. But perhaps you do not. You may also not remember Pres. Obama himself speaking of this. On one occasion he told an audience of African-Americans that they would have to learn to put down the fried chicken! Yes, ad hominem attacks under the guise of care, concern, compassion, etc. are more than "depressing" to me. They lack any "sensible" measure of self-criticism. . .one thing both "crazies" on the left and right share. . .each too wrapped up in their own self-righteousness to look seriously at their flawed reasoning.
ReplyDeleteOne thing that surprises me, though. No one seems to have have slimmed Ben Nelson (D-Neb) yet.
Methinks that if you pay more than anyone else for your insurance-based system and only end up nr 37 in result, way behind anyone else, there is only one solution.
ReplyDeleteThink anew. Start again.
Impressive thread - more a rope, really - Mimi. Totally with Doxy on this.
ReplyDeleteLet's not forget God's reply to Cain when he asked "Am I my brother's keeper?"
ReplyDeleteA pox on Nelson and all those faux Democrats who decided that holding my rights over my own body hostage to healthcare reform was a good thing to do. They are scumsucking slimewads and deserve to be unseated and replaced with REAL Democrats the next time around.
ReplyDeleteHappier now, Jim?
Your problem is that you start with "We can't because __________." I start with "We MUST because it's the decent and right thing to do."
I would shut down every last health insurance company TODAY if I had the power. Shut them down and there are billions available to pay for healthcare. (We'd have to find all those folks other jobs, of course. I'd have the execs sweeping streets, cleaning toilets, and picking up trash, myself. Show them what a good, HONEST day's work looks like.)
I start from the position that healthcare is a human right. There ought not to be ANY profit attached to it. That is why a single payer system is the only moral option.
Will we have to ration care? Of course! We ration care right now--but it is unelected insurance companies with no accountability to the public who do it. By all means, let's have an open, honest conversation about the limits to care---but let's have some honesty on the part of all those Republicans you are touting, Jim. I didn't hear Judd Gregg refute those nasty "death panel" rumors once. In fact, I heard several key Republicans actively fanning those flames. That was despicable--and, quite frankly, it makes me MUCH less willing to listen to what they have to say about healthcare reform when they so dishonestly and immorally manipulate people's fears about change. They are not acting in good faith, and they are CERTAINLY not looking out for the vast majority of Americans who need a resolution to the healthcare issue.
Doxy
Jim, "they did it, too," is not a persuasive argument.
ReplyDeleteI second Doxy's comment.
ReplyDeleteI third Doxy. The only useful purpose that I see for the health insurance companies is to provide super coverage for the rich who want to pay for it. To make record profits on the backs of sick and dying people in the midst of a deep recession is completely unacceptable.
ReplyDeleteAnd don't get me started about Nelson, Landrieu, and the other Blue Dog DINOs.
Doxy: Well, the nation breathes a collective sigh of relief that you don't have "the power." Actually, if you take the pulse of the nation at present about 60% of us are opposed to current Congressional health care "reform" proposals. Oklahoma Sen. Coburn has rather harshly stated that the "reform" advocates answer to people is "die sooner." The advocates of rationed single-payer and subsidized insurance "reform" schemes actually approach this.
ReplyDelete"Death panels"? I didn't know that Sen. Gregg was personally responsible for being a one man correction team for Sarah Palin. I think palliative care and consultation is a good thing. . .we need more. In the long run it would save heartache for lots of folk and make their transition more peaceful. Sensible health insurance should cover it.
Mimi: they did what too? If you're talking about preventitive medicine. . .which is a point I was responding to. . .this assumes that patients take responsibility for their own health. Doctors do this every day when they give medical advice to patients. Do you blame them for this approach as well? I suppose you don't believe cardiologists should tell patients to lose weight and stop smoking. Or believe that primary care physicians should tell their pre-diabetic patients to exercise and eat a diet rich in fiber. You sound like one of those "die sooner" people that Sen. Coburn was talking about.
"(V)ast majority" of Americans"? They are against (by about 60%) so-called "health care reform" as currently proposed by the House and Senate.
Insurance provides a service. The cost is the problem, not the insurance itself. Now what needs to be addressed for real reform to take place is to address the problem of the cost of health care. . .and it availability. The DEM approach is to tinker with "health insurance" and then tackle the problem of cost as an afterthought. This will bankrupt the country. . .the "vast majority" of Americans realize this at the current moment.
Well Jim--YOU may be breathing a sigh of relief, but I suspect you don't have to worry about health insurance, do you?
ReplyDeleteYou must be very pleased. There will be no meaningful reform--not now, and probably not in my lifetime. (I'm 46.) Hope you are happy--and that you don't lose your job. (Unless, of course, you are covered by Medicare--which would make you a selfish hypocrite.)
BTW, there are only two ways to contain costs. Pay less for services or ration their use. One doesn't need to have a Ph.D. in economics to figure that out.
The only way to pay less for services is to have a single payer system. Otherwise, there is no other incentive or pressure great enough to drive prices and salaries down. (Don't even start about tort reform---it's a red herring, as even the Congressional Budget Office knows. The state of Texas has certainly learned from experience--as Arkansas Hillbilly noted earlier in this thread.)
As for rationing---I think we need to have an honest conversation about what medical care we can afford for EVERYONE. People are "dying sooner" every single day in this country--I have even watched it happen. The difference under the system I have in mind is that decisions about limiting care would occur in a fair and open system with accountability and those decisions would be made based on medical outcomes, not on whether the recipient could afford insurance or not. (Mimi, I even think it's a bad idea to let rich people buy more insurance than the rest of us---it's still an immoral advantage.)
Jim, you act as if rationing is not going on right now---when you must KNOW that to be a lie. The difference is that now the rationing is done based on profit margins. How can you possibly defend such a system?
Insurance provides a service.
Insurance is nothing more than legalized extortion.
And nobody knows that better than those of us who have paid for insurance for years and then tried to collect when we needed it...
I didn't know that Sen. Gregg was personally responsible for being a one man correction team for Sarah Palin.
I believe that every person has a responsibility to speak out when blatant lies are being told--whether in their homes, their communities, or the world at large. Just think how different the world might have been if Germans had countered Hitler's anti-Semitism, or the Hutus in Rwanda had said "We don't buy that nonsense about our Tutsi neighbors." So yes, I DO hold Sen. Gregg responsible for those lies--along with every other member of the U.S. Congress who didn't denounce that egregious falsehood immediately. (Some, like Sen. Grassley from Iowa, continued to spout it long after it had been completely debunked.)
Your willingness to excuse them is really quite disturbing. As Counterlight noted, God is pretty explicit about this issue--we ARE our "brother's keepers."
Doxy
Doxy: Ph.D.? Well, some Ph.D.'s in economics disagree with your "2 ways". Apparently, there is much that can be done to lessen costs apart from rationing services or reducing them. And some of these have been fairly widely reported. And, yes, it doesn't take a Ph.D. in economics to read this stuff.
ReplyDelete"(M)eaningful reform"? The Congressional bills never were about that. . .they were about subsidizing insurance and mandating its purchase. You seem to be nurturing this fantasy that DEM plans will magically rescue the poor who receive no medical care and give them great medical care. On what planet?? The Dem plans are about winning a political contest while they still have the votes. It is not about instituting the best public policy.
I don't recall mentioning "tort reform." I have not seen any estimates that show it giving more than a relatively small savings, but a real reported savings nonetheless. On the other hand, Obama claims that billions will be saved in cutting out "fraud and abuse" and will fund his reform. Really? Alternative plans do not have tort reform as their center piece. That is simply not the case.
Restaurant meals, groceries, Caribbean cruises, clothing, etc. are also "rationed" in that limited resources are dispensed unevenly based on price, income, geography, etc. Well, I suppose you are advocating that everyone, everywhere has a "right" to access to M.R.I. and machines and C.T. scans. I would think you would be more concerned that people who need basic medical care get it and that it should be affordable and of good quality. It seems, on the other hand, you are more concerned with riding an ideological hobby horse.
I am not aware of any evidence about Sen. Gregg's public views on Sarah Palin's misperceptions. Nor do I think many politicians of either political party have gone on record about her views on health care reform. Nor should they feel they have a responsibility for this. The Nazis? Yes, when folks don't have a rational argument they generally drag in Hitler and the Nazis.
Who is the "we" in "we are our brother's keeper"? And what do you suggest we abdicate to the state? You certainly are in NO position to make ANY judgments about how others do or do not meet their personal responsiblity in being "their brother's keeper." And you presume much too much in your ideological zealotry.
Jim, your main concern seems to be cost. I assume then that you know that we pay more for less here in the US, and yet tens of millions remain uninsured. Does that concern you?
ReplyDeleteCare is rationed here. Those who have good insurance get good health care. Those with poor insurance or none are too often left to suffer and sometimes die for lack of health care. Does that bother you at all?
Perhaps no bill will be passed, and things will remain as they are. Is that what you want? Are you aware that we will still break the bank if the situation remains as it is now?
Do the concepts of justice and compassion have no place in the discussion, or is it all about cost?
Well, I suppose you are advocating that everyone, everywhere has a "right" to access to M.R.I. and machines and C.T. scans. I would think you would be more concerned that people who need basic medical care get it and that it should be affordable and of good quality.
ReplyDeleteCan your read for comprehension, Jim? That is exactly what I *am* arguing for. I don't think that one group of people should have access to all the bells and whistles of 21st century medical care while another can't even get a check-up.
I'm not riding an ideological hobbyhorse---I'm sincerely interested in in living in a fair and just world where people actually care enough about their fellow human beings to ensure that they are cared for when they are ill.
And I'm also sincerely interested in ensuring that the Big Lies spouted by the barking-mad dogs on the right are countered.
Do you disagree with me that those aims are important? We certainly don't agree on the specifics, but--like Mimi--I'm trying to figure out just what it is that you want to see happen.
I'd also be interested to know wkind of insurance you have and what (if anything) would you be willing to give up so that others could have care?
Finally, I would like to know if you've ever watched someone you care for die because they were too poor to afford healthcare? I am passionate about this issue because I have seen, up close and personal, how pernicious our current system is. This is not academic for me.
Doxy
"Rationing" is a loaded term. There is natural rationing that arises due to natural differences in geography, economic status, etc. Middle class people in Rochester, Minnesota have lots better health care than middle class people in Demopolis, Alabama. The problem is a coercive authority set in place making rationing decisions. That is what Americans are reacting against.
ReplyDeleteI believe I have repeatedly stated that a needed reform should be for those increase access to health care to get that access. I suppose you are so blinded by your own self-righteousness you ignore this. . .repeatedly.
There are many meanings of "justice." I do not take the notion of coercion by a omnicompetent state that robs personal liberty to be a cogent understanding of "justice." Nor do I think it is "compassion" to create a huge public sector that fosters large rate of unemployment and taxation and low rates of economic growth. This is bizarre to claim that the poor can only be helped by creating such a society. It is neither just nor compassionate to resort to economic foolishness simply to temporarily soothe one's fleeting feelings.
Doxy: those who presently do not have health care and who need affordable and quality primary care can receive it apart from the public seizure of the health care system. John Mackey of Whole Foods has put such proposals forward as have economists like Michael Munger of Duke. We should not sacrifice the quality of care in the present system but make it more accessible and affordable. That won't happen in the government seizure scheme advocated by the self-styled "compassionate" left.
Actually, the political managers of the debate are not asking Americans to "give up" anything. They are operating under the pretense that the quality and access and cost of current care will remain unchanged. The DEMS have not been honest and told the American people that they are being asked to sacrifice and pay more and receive less. They are not presenting this as a national sacrifice to include the uninsured. . .this is simply not the dominant theme in the rhetoric. Nor FDRs out there today among the DEMS. Just midgets with bad plans and bad policies.
I do not know anyone who likes the present system as it is. I know private insurance companies need regulation. I also have severe doubts about the wisdom of a public seizure of the health care industry given that there are other ways we can reform the health care system to make it more accessible and affordable. Finally, I do not understand folks who think they individually have a monopoly on human "compassion" and care. It is so often allows self-legitimation and self-delusion when it moves into the realm of political advocacy.
Jim--You still haven't answered my questions:
ReplyDeleteWhat kind of health insurance do you have?
Have you lost anyone you cared about because they couldn't afford healthcare?
Jim, it might be helpful if you could give us a brief outline of the Munger plan or the Mackey plan, as examples of what we might do to avoid a government takeover of health care. Do either of them provide universal health care? You see, some of us bleeding heart liberals, crazy as the idea may be, actually believe that health care is a RIGHT.
ReplyDeleteIt troubles me that you tend not to answer the questions posed to you.
Ok, let's try this mule one more time...
ReplyDeleteJim,
I have looked up two of the individuals you have named continuously in your debate. Of them, Professor Munger, a Libertarian, has written extensively on the subject, and I disagree with his view. He seems to take the opinion that health insurance should be like car insurance, at least from the articles I have read. Mr. Mackey, the CEO of Whole Foods, compares unions to VD ("The union is like having herpes. It doesn't kill you, but it's unpleasant and inconvenient, and it stops a lot of people from becoming your lover.") Both come from the position that basic healthcare is a commodity to be traded, not a right. Both advocate a system that opens insurance across state borders, uses health savings accounts and catastrophic insurance, again to make it more like car insurance.
The problem with this view is again that healthcare is not a commodity for those who can afford it. Health savings accounts are great for those who can afford to sock away the money, but for those who are barely making ends meet as it is, you might as well ask them to lasso the Moon. Even though my wife and children are not covered under my VA benefits, I am not allowed to participate in this system because I have the VA for myself. Where would this leave my wife and children for the "preventive care" like annual check ups, vaccinations, and such?
We are not dealing with automobiles, we are dealing with human lives. Lives like the police officer in Siloam Springs, AR whose wife is going through chemotherapy for breast cancer and must choose between her continued treatment or the rent for their home. Lives like the young girl in Georgia who died earlier this year waiting for Blue Cross to approve her liver transplant. Or the woman who was denied coverage for cancer treatments because she forgot to mention she was treated for acne as a teenager. Or Doxy's friend who made too much for Medicaid but not enough for insurance. She died of cancer because she couldn't afford regular doctor visits and the disease was caught too late to be treated. She left behind a young son. Care to explain to him why his mother is not able to hug him anymore? Would you explain that it was her fault for not having a health savings plan or that she would still be alive if there had been more competition between doctors for her business (the "Munger plan").
I do not purport to hold a monopoly on "compassion". I do however know that, like diapers, if something stinks, it should be changed. This system is broken. Competition between insurance companies will work about as well as competition between oil companies has. Having at least a Public Option (note the term option there, Jim) allows for true competition and cost control. Until that happens, all other methods of "cost control" will be like peeing into the wind. Sure it makes you feel better, but you still wind up standing in a mess.
Yes, I believe everyone understands the system needs to be changed. Many of us believe that the ideas of Munger and others will make the present health care system more affordable and accessible. Munger's is not a complete plan, by any means. But the notion of eliminating the role of private coverage. . .which is what the "public option" is intended to accomplish. . .is not fiscally possible. . .another reason Americans oppose "Obamacare" by about 60% to 49%. Getting medical treatment to those who need it should not mean destroying the highest quality health care system in the world or having it ultimately seized by the government. And I am not sure that many plans preface themselves by stating philosophical principles. . .I imagine that criminal statutes about breaking and entering do not reference in the text mention of the right to personal property or the right to be secure. The point is how to establish the best health care delivery system. That is what an economist like Munger is worried about. So, if his program results in a more effective system that preserves a high level of quality at a lower cost for more people, then why would one be against this? The point, I would think, would be to add other provisions to his plan to provide treatment guarantees so that all receive needed care, not to jettison the system he proposes simply because the man is identified with "Libertarian" interests. To do that would be counter to reason and to the basic interests of us all.
ReplyDeleteForget it, Mimi, Jim isn't interested in actually telling you what he would suggest. He just wants to keep the best healthcare in the world, even though US health care ranks 37th in the world, it's still the best!
ReplyDeleteVW is "prohn." Jim is not prohn to really answer specifice questions.
Susan, my hope, probably vain, is that Jim's mind is not completely closed to all that has been said in the comments here.
ReplyDeleteArkansas Hillbilly--thank you. You said that beautifully, and I really appreciated what you said about my friend.
ReplyDeleteI'll bet money that Jim is on Medicare or VA. That's why he won't answer the question.