When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
Connect with
I allow to create an account
When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
36 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Real Patriot
14 years ago
This is America where we abide by the Constitution. Read it and weep on your way to North Korea you commie!
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Darn right the outrage is real. American eagles don’t fancy the cage the government is building for them, and they aren’t going to go quietly into bondage.
Can you believe this would EVER happen in our country? REAL Americans, with REAL concerns are being mocked and criticized by ELECTED OFFICIALS!!!
If they think by intimidating and ridiculing us, that we will quieting fade away into darkness out of fear, they are sorely mistaken.
‘First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, and then you win.’
-Gandi
Buffalobob
14 years ago
Real Americans are not only being mocked and ridiculed by the President of the United States, his staff, leaders and members of the Democratic party, the MSN hacks but also unfortunately by AARP, an organization supposedly founded to be an advocate for the elderly 50+ .
You haven’t seen anything yet. They are going to fight like cornered rats. Imagine what they’ve got their opposition research team on. Those little old ladies in the bermudas and t-shirts are about to get a bit of Joe the Plumber treatment.
Another chapter in the ongoing Medicare vs Private health care debate:
Proposed Mastectomy Law Change
(written by a surgeon);
I’ll never forget the look in my patients eyes when I had to tell them they had to go home with the drains, new exercises and no breast. I remember begging the doctors to keep these women in the hospital longer, only to hear that they would, but their hands were tied by the insurance companies.
So there I sat with my patient giving them the instructions they needed to take care of themselves, knowing full well they didn’t grasp half of what I was saying, because the glazed, hopeless, frightened look spoke louder than the quiet ‘Thank you’ they muttered.
A mastectomy is when a woman’s breast is removed in order to remove cancerous breast cells/tissue. If you know anyone who has had a mastectomy, you may know that there is a lot of discomfort and pain afterwards. Insurance companies are trying to make mastectomies an outpatient procedure. Let’s give women the chance to recover properly in the hospital for 2 days after surgery.
This Mastectomy Bill is in Congress now. It takes 2 seconds to do this and is very important. Please take the time and do it really quick! The Breast Cancer Hospitalization Bill is important legislation for all women.
Please send this to everyone in your address book. If there was ever a time when our voices and choices should be heard, this is one of those times. If you’re receiving this, it’s because I think you will take the 30 seconds to go to vote on this issue and send it on to others you know who will do the same.
There’s a bill called the Breast Cancer Patient Protection Act which will require insurance companies to cover a minimum 48-hour hospital stay for patients undergoing a mastectomy. It’s about eliminating the ‘drive-through mastectomy’ where women are forced to go home just a few hours after surgery, against the wishes of their doctor, still groggy from anesthesia and sometimes withdrainage tubes still attached.
Lifetime Television has put this bill on their web page with a petition drive to show your support.. Last year over half the House signed on. PLEASE! Sign the petition by clicking on the web site below. You need not give more than your name and zip code number.
This situation is not at all unusual. In general, Medicare presents fewer problems for patients relating to issues such as the above, as well as offering unsurpassed patient choice in hospitals and doctors, which is why Medicare scores highest with patient satisfaction, while still providing more than adequate profit margins to keep providers in the system, and doing this for substantially less total cost than purely private health care.
For the life of me, I can’t understand why there would be any downside whatsoever to extending Medicare availability to everyone, on a voluntary basis, preserving the option for all providers and patients to opt out, if they wished. It would provide a better health care product at a lower overall cost.
Of course medicare isn’t going to pay any more than they would if you had a minimum hospital stay. They’re just going to mandate hospitals do what they’re told. Which is why so many doctors are opting out.
But not to worry Larry. Under the new program your messiah is implementing, we won’t have to worry about mastectomies and you will be out of business. Oregon has a single payer – universal healthcare thingy for those below the poverty line. http://abcnews.go.com/m/screen?id=5517492
`snip:
The 64-year-old Oregon woman, whose lung cancer had been in remission, learned the disease had returned and would likely kill her. Her last hope was a $4,000-a-month drug that her doctor prescribed for her, but the insurance company refused to pay.
What the Oregon Health Plan did agree to cover, however, were drugs for a physician-assisted death. Those drugs would cost about $50.
Under the new plan Obama signs, you can report anyone with cancer to: death@whitehouse.gov
Aye re-posted the Medicare cost graph from another thread; so I’ll repost my response:
Aye, your graph of Medicare deficit is not just misleading, it’s incredibly misleading.
The TOTAL cost of Medicare is much less than the total cost of purely “private” healthcare. Add up taxes and insurance premiums and out of pocket payments — it’s much less for Medicare.
Yes, Medicare costs are way more than what were projected. But this isn’t because of “bureaucratic inefficiency” or anything like that. It’s simply because health care costs (including the doctor’s compensation levels shown in my link) have risen much more than other sectors of the economy.
Thank goodness for Medicare. In the absence of Medicare, how do you propose that senior citizens would receive health care? If they could somehow afford to purchase private health insurance, the total costs to the economy would be much more, because it has been proven that private health care is much more expensive than Medicare and the consumer satisfaction with private health care is less than it is with Medicare.
So tell me, Aye, if you take away public health care (Medicare), how are elderly people supposed to get health care? Maybe increase 401Ks? And then there’s another stock market crash and, in addition to no retirement, there’s also no health care?
Or maybe we just take our parents out into the woods and leave them as food for predatory animals, the way the innuit used to do it?
What’s your alternative for senior health care?
What’s your alternative for keeping health care from bankrupting the economy? And don’t go tossing around “tort reform.” That’s a small part of the problem.
P.S. Medicare places fewer restrictions on choice of drugs and other cancer treatments than do the major private health care companies.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim: Obama promises more people covered and at lower cost. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to know that means rationing of care. Care delayed is care denied.
Aye, I can’t seem to explain the situation in a way you can understand. I’ll take the responsibility. I’m obviously just not making myself clear.
Yes, Medicare is going broke. Something must be done to fix it. Either revenues must be increased (i.e. taxes must be raised) or else costs must be contained.
But here’s the deal: private health care is in even worse shape. If we turned all of Medicare over to private health care, then who would pay for the insurance premiums for all those old people — most of whom have pre-existinig conditions and all of whom will eventually have fatal conditions?
And, if you could find someone to pay the premiums, then the total cost of those premiums would be much higher than the taxes required to support Medicare.
Now, there are a number of things which could be done. For starters, Congress could lift the prohibition against Medicare negotiating with big pharma for the cost of prescription drugs. This is a huge (and hugely growing expense). There is no reason at all why the American government must pay twice the cost of the Canadian government for the same drug. No reason, save for big pharma having Congress in its pocket. And the GOP has been, by far, the greater obstacle to getting this changed.
Second, we can greatly increase the acceptance of foreign medical graduates as immigrants into the USA. It is a travesty that organized medicine succeeded in getting medical schools to drastically lower enrollments during the late 70s and early 80s. Most medical schools cut back their enrollments by 1/3, from levels existing in the early 1970s. This protected doctors from competition. It produced a gross distortion in the market, by limiting the supply of vendors (doctors), at a time when the number of customers (patients) was exploding. With more doctors, there will be a greater willingness of doctors to provide services, producing competition among doctors, even though it may pain doctors to have their income levels drop.
Thirdly, we can and should have tort reform in malpractice.
Fourth, we can tax employer provided health care benefits.
And these reforms, by themselves, would make Medicare fully solvent, and reduce health care costs globally.
What remains is health insurance reform, which is what Congress will be working on after the recess. But Medicare is the benchmark. It’s the most successful health care system in America, in terms of producing a superior product, with greater customer satisfaction, at a lower overall cost.
No one is proposing a British system, much less a Canadian system. The successful models are those in Germany, France, Norway, Sweden, Australia. These are combined private/public systems, with freedom of choice of both providers and patients to participate in either or both. These systems provide superior health outcomes at a much lower net cost and no one goes bankrupt to health care expenses, while, in the USA, the number one cause of personal bankruptcies are health care expenses in people who do have health insurance.
The “insurance” against being the victim of “rationing” is for a patient covered by the public system to have what would be relatively low cost “rationing” insurance. Or else a responsible person could maintain a health savings account for a rainy day.
I wrote earlier that Medicare places fewer restrictions on cancer treatment than do the large private health care plans. Health care is already being “rationed,” whether you know it or not. It’s being rationed every day in health care reimbursement and treatment denials. Most people love their health insurance, because most people don’t get seriously ill. It is only when you get cancer or some other serious condition that you realize just how inadequate private health insurance can be, particularly if you want state of the art treatment.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
suek
14 years ago
>>But here’s the deal: private health care is in even worse shape.>>
But…I thought private health insurance companies were making money hand over fist…?? Is that not true?
Rides A Pale Horse
14 years ago
I’m not that eloquent as some here so I’ll just let my “art” speak for itself……..
>>But here’s the deal: private health care is in even worse shape.>>
But…I thought private health insurance companies were making money hand over fist…?? Is that not true?
What I meant by the first of the above sentences is this: The cost of providing health care in the purely private sector is even more out of control than in the case of Medicare.
Cost of providing health care = taxes + insurance premiums + patient out of pocket payments + “fraud”
Cost of providing health care in the purely private sector is greater than in the case of Medicare.
Medicare is running a deficit because Medicare taxes are not keeping up with inflationary growth of health care. Purely private health insurance is able to raise its premiums continually, and they continue to do so. This is in the process of bankrupting American businesses (and American families who must pay for their own health insurance; the most common cause of personal bankruptcy are health care expenses in people who have health insurance). Famously, GM pays more for worker health insurance than it pays for steel. But having health insurance does not prevent personal bankruptcy in the event of many types of catastrophic illness.
I have to pay for my own health insurance and I have had a huge problem obtaining what I think is adequate coverage at any price. I still don’t have adequate coverage.
My own philosophy about health insurance is that I don’t need it to cover the small stuff. I don’t carry insurance to pay for out of pocket car repairs. If I need a new transmission, I could be out several thousands of dollars. What I need out of health insurance is for it to pay for catastrophic illness, to prevent me from becoming bankrupt.
I formerly carried $4,000 annual deductible insurance from California Blue Cross, which, several years ago, cost only $7,500 per year. In addition, I carried a terrific catastrophic insurance plan , which I obtained through the American Medical Association, which cost $1,250 per year, with a $20,000 annual deductible. I’d have to pay the first $4,000 for each family member, and then 20% of the next $8,000 and then Blue Cross would pay pretty much 100% after that. Once total expenses (out of pocket plus Blue Cross) exceeded $20,000, my AMA policy promised to pay 100% of literally everything else. I thought that I was set.
However, funny thing happened. Rates for both policies kept going up, until I was paying close to $25,000 per year for both policies. And this was for $4,000 annual deductible for covered family member, which, by this time, consisted only of my, my wife, and the younger of our two kids (the older one having graduated from college).
Then the final shoe dropped: the AMA policy limited its outpatient prescription drug coverage to only $15,000 per year. Why was this a problem? Well, statistically the most likely catastrophic illness is cancer. The newest cancer drugs tend to be oral, outpatient drugs, and these are typically selling for $10,000 PER MONTH! So, if I or my wife or kid needed a year’s worth, this would be $120,000 and my catastrophic insurance would only cover $15,000 of this. Now, Blue Cross would cover more, but only if the drug were used for an “approved” indication. But, increasingly, the new cancer drugs have only a very narrow range of approved indications. A drug approved for kidney cancer might be the most promising thing to treat my colon cancer, in combination with other drug(s), but, because it carries a label indicating it’s only approved for kidney cancer, Blue Cross won’t pay for it.
So I decided that the AMA catastrophic policy just wasn’t worth the $12,000 per year that I was paying for it.
I didn’t think that Blue Cross was good enough as a stand alone policy. I shopped around for months, before deciding on a California Blue Shield (a non-profit) policy with $8,000 per person deductible. This costs $12,000 per year.
So I’ve cut my yearly premiums in half ($25,000 down to $12,000), but, on top of this, I have to pay the first $8,000 per person per year, and I’m still vulnerable for limitations of coverage and non-approval for using expensive cancer drugs for off label indications. The reasons that I went with Blue Shield (non-profit) rather than Blue Cross (for profit) is that the Blue Shield coverage is a little more broad and deep and, in my personal experience in dealing with CA Blue Shield from the provider standpoint, they are much more reasonable in approving cutting edge treatments, when evaluated on a case by case basis.
But, health insurance-wise, it’s a jungle out there. Of course people are happy with their insurance, when the insurance is paid for by someone else and when they aren’t seriously ill. But, just wait until you REALLY need American-style health insurance.
Too often it’s just not there for you.
Medicare is frankly much more reliable.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
suek
14 years ago
>>Cost of providing health care in the purely private sector is greater than in the case of Medicare.>>
Isn’t that largely because Medicare limits the payments it will make to physicians? If you have artificial price controls, it _will_ control costs – and usually results in a shortage of services.
Are you also saying that private insurance companies have a greater problem with fraud than does Medicare?
If so, I’d sure like to see your source for that info…
Real Patriot, PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE is the single most abused catchall for frivolous spending, worthless programs, earmarks and general mischief that masquerades as “Representing the Constituency.”
The General Welfare Clause sends pork to pay election debts, finances groups like ACORN with taxpayer dollars, builds bridges to nowhere and promotes deficit spending extraordinaire. Find for me, you Constitutional Scholars where publicly funded health care is a Right. Find for me where public funding of groups like ACORN is a Constitutional Mandate. Find for me where subsidizing Wall Street or giving authorization to empower Czars that are not held responsible to the Voters or Vetted by the Senate are Mandated by Law.
Out of Control Government is the Obama, Reid, Pelosi Legacy that will characterize this period in American history. When Government is no longer responsive to the Citizens it is off track. when Congress enacts Programs that cannot be adequately funded they are acting irresponsibly.
Social Security and Medicare are broke. The Health Care reform should have started out with Tort Reform but did not. Congress Office holders that vote on bills they have not read should face Ethics Charges and removal from Office upon conviction but since Dodd and Conrad were cleared of guilt in the Countrywide Mortgage scam the Ethics Committee is a Joke.
Will we see real reform in Health care? Not bloody likely. Will Government be held responsive to the Citizens on this? Nope. Not until 2010. Back to basics and fiscal responsibility will happen when America gets a belly full. The poll numbers suggest just that. There is no urgency that recommends changes in Health care poorly crafted and done in a rush. I want Government out of the Health Care Business, the Auto Industry and other General Welfare baloney that funds ACORN.
Just my take on it. Socialism has never worked anywhere and Social Experiments are not within the Authority or purview of Government.
Hard Right
14 years ago
It’s funny how larry complains about insurance companies tying the hands of doctors, but is all in favor of having the government do it.
So I take it you are all in favor of rationing as long as Obama drones at the Dept. of Health get to do the rationing?
It’s funny how larry complains about insurance companies tying the hands of doctors, but is all in favor of having the government do it.
Firstly, the “rationing” thing is a red herring. It presupposes that (1) there is only a single payer system, (2) the single payer gets to call all of the shots, and (3) it is illegal to provide or seek health care outside of the single payer system. It is also naive, because it pretends that severe rationing does not already go on in the private sector (where “rationing” is much more severe than in the case of Medicare).
There is not now nor will be in the forseeable future any sort of plausible consensus which would support a Canadian style system. All the systems under serious consideration have competing private systems or competing public and private systems. The private companies whine that a public system would kill them off, but that wasn’t the case in Germany, France, Norway, Sweden, or Australia and I can’t believe that health care entrepreneurs in these “socialist” countries are so much better at competitive capitalism than are US health care entrepreneurs.
Let’s take a worst case scenario. We have a dominant single payer system. What will then spring up will be companies which offer “single payer supplement” insurance, which will be relatively low cost, because the single payer will take care of most needs. The “supplement” would only kick in for “single payer” non-covered services. So no one who was worried about such a possibility need ever be rationed to death.
Fortunately, we have real life experience with “rationing” under private versus public (Medicare) systems. Facts: more “rationing” with the private plans. Facts: Far more difficult to appeal, argue, sue for coverage in the private plans than in the case of Medicare.
Medicare coverage (“rationing”) decisions are made through a process of extraordinarily detailed and transparent technology assessment panels, made up of a collection of eminent, outside physicians, nurses, social workers, and patient representatives, representing both private practice and academia. I once participated in a two day Medicare coverage meeting, held in Baltimore, concerning a particular technology which I provide. Details of the process are described on one of my web sites: http://weisenthal.org –> scroll down to
News and official government transcripts pertaining to national Medicare coverage for Human Tumor Assays
Here’s a link to a video of my own presentation at this meeting, arguing in favor of coverage for my technology:
In contrast to this entirely open and transparent process, all of the major private insurance companies utilize closed reviews, with hand picked panels, either employed by (and therefore dependent on) the individual insurance companies or else retained as paid consultants. These coverage meetings are opaque and closed and not open to the public or to physicians who may wish to attend and make presentations in favor of coverage, such as that made by me in the above-linked video.
So, whereas Mike would ostensibly prefer to have his own care “rationed” by the private sector, I’ll gladly take my chances with the likes of Medicare.
Incidentally, the very last line of appeal (after 5 different levels of appeal) for Medicare denials is the patient’s local congressman. All the Medicare contractors have an in house case manager, who’s job it is to respond to queries by members of Congress regarding obtaining coverage for procedures needed by their constituents. This is an option assuredly not available in the private sector. This constituent service is offered by Republicans and Democrats alike, on a purely non-partisan basis.
Point # 2:
Are you also saying that private insurance companies have a greater problem with fraud than does Medicare?
Private sector companies are opaque (see above). CEOs don’t like admitting to being duped. In the case of the public sector, there are strict laws ensuring total transparency. So it’s much easier for the press to learn about Medicare fraud than Blue Cross fraud.
However, this is also a red herring. The key question is total cost. Total cost is easy to determine:
It is (1) taxes + (2) insurance premiums + (3) patient out of pocket payments.
The above revenues go to pay for (1) health care + (2) bureaucracy/management + (3) profits + (4) “fraud.”
These overall costs are higher for private insurance companies than for Medicare, despite Medicare delivering greater patient satisfaction and fewer personal bankruptcies.
#3
Isn’t that largely because Medicare limits the payments it will make to physicians? If you have artificial price controls, it _will_ control costs – and usually results in a shortage of services.
Medicare essentially runs like many government agencies: It contracts out needed services to private vendors. Thus, private insurance companies compete to be awarded contracts to administer Medicare in different regions of the country (the California Medicare contractor used to be TransAmerica and then National Heritage Insurance and now Palmetto Insurance). It also signs up physicians to provide services. All physicians know the reimbursement rates before they sign up. None are forced to sign up. All physicians are free to opt out of Medicare if they are unhappy with the reimbursement. If too many opt out, then obviously Medicare would have to increase reimbursement. But it’s a totally voluntary, capitalist system.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim says: ” So, whereas Mike would ostensibly prefer to have his own care “rationed” by the private sector, I’ll gladly take my chances with the likes of Medicare.”
So you admit you are a statist who prefers big government over private enterprise!
Why am I not surprised!
But poor Larry… you just don’t get it do you? The government NEVER does a better job of managing things than the private sector and it ALWAYS ends up costing more than it would otherwise.
Why do you think people are so loathe to hand over MORE POWER to the government?
@openid.aol.com/runnswim says: ” So, whereas Mike would ostensibly prefer to have his own care “rationed” by the private sector, I’ll gladly take my chances with the likes of Medicare.”
So you admit you are a statist who prefers big government over private enterprise!
Good grief. I’ve got 22 years of real life experience dealing with Medicare and private insurance companies on a daily basis. My opinions are based on real life experience and not on a fanciful extrapolation of economic theories which apply to other sectors of the economy, but most assuredly not to health care.
The government NEVER does a better job of managing things than the private sector and it ALWAYS ends up costing more than it would otherwise.
Many a beautiful theory has been ruined by an ugly fact. Medicare provides a better service at a lower cost, resulting in greater patient satisfaction and fewer personal bankruptcies and unsurpassed health care outcomes.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Hard Right
14 years ago
Larry, I deal with medicare from a different angle than you, and I don’t see the “fact” you claim. I do see people not getting what they need.
I had a longer response to your post, but the computer I’m borrowing crashed when I tried to post it.
Health Care Coverage/Insurance can-should always be improved and indeed several great ideas have been presented as options the past few years and voted down (even voted against by a Senator Obama). . .
In 2009, alternatives-to-ObamaCare-reform-proposals have been presented but don’t seem to get any attention by the White House, Senate, or the House as presenters have an R next to their name. . .including:
—————
My Liberal acquaintances will not even entertain talking about the Patients’ Choice Act/other ideas until I am able to slip in the fact they address how we can provide coverage for all Americans AND how to fund. Further, these proposals do not subscribe to White House Health Care Policy Advisor, Dr Ezekiel Emmanuel’s theories on “health care.”
—————-
Today – another concept was put on the table by Charles Krauthammer. A former MD and Psychiatrist, his concept comes from more insight than his esteemed political analysis fame. Worth the time to at least skim through his suggested two prong approach. Includes Tort reform, universal care coverage, and paying for it all ! Krauthammer, with his credentials and common sense, would be a great replacement for either/both Dr Emmanuel or Secretary of Health & Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, a former governor and trial attorney.
As this effects all Americans, we should all have a voice…and not let Dr Ezekiel Emmanuel dictate our health care reform…he was not even elected. (If you are not familiar with Rahm’s brother’s health care philosophy/writings — do not delay as he greatly influenced present Congressional Democrat/ObamaCare solution drafts)…be wary.
Aqua
14 years ago
Larry didn’t answer any of my questions, so I don’t expect to see an answer here. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again; I believe there needs to be some insurance reform.
However, Larry says:
There is not now nor will be in the forseeable future any sort of plausible consensus which would support a Canadian style system. All the systems under serious consideration have competing private systems or competing public and private systems.
OK Larry, you have 22 years of real life experience. I’m guessing that includes running a business. So, I have a donut store. I make a pretty good profit, keep the lights on, pay my vendors with enough left over to provide for my family. But I have to keep my prices competitive or people will go where the donuts are cheaper. One day, the government decides to put in a donut store across the street from mine. Not only do they not have to make a profit, but they aren’t going to get upset if they go in the hole a little bit. How do I compete with that? I have to lower the quality of my product, decrease the quantity of my product, or most likely, both. And when I do that, my customers are going to still go across the street. Viola, single payer donuts.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim: And my father has more than 30 years dealing with medicaid and medicare as a physician and he still felt compelled to buy expensive supplemental health insurance because he fully understood that government health care is by necessity care delayed and care denied.
Do you have your supplemental policy yet Larry?
But I am glad to see you relate this issue to your real life experience. Unlike your previous prognostications on global warming which were nothing more than hot air.
Larry is a dancer. He deals in fancy footwork, twirling pirouettes, or “Oooh…shiny” arguments in order to distract you from what the real issues are.
Larry is also an experienced purveyor of myths. He’s done it here over and over and over. Of course, when he’s called on it he gets all indignant and, at times, a bit pouty.
His reactions, however, don’t change the inconvenient facts.
Whenever he is pinned down with a set of facts that don’t fit his argument, he will most likely:
a) claim his debate opponent has presented “misleading” information (but not detail why he labeled it as such),
b) build up a series of straw men and engage in a series of counter questions or arguments in order to not address the matter at hand,
c) repeat the same series of previously refuted arguments, even though they don’t fit the current set of facts,
d) not respond at all, perhaps subsequently blaming it on being “busy”, or being unable to respond to more than one debate opponent at the time.
With regard to the dark threats of a Canadian style, single payer system, anything is possible, twenty years down the road. But there is absolutely no current support for a system which would grant a Canadian style government monopoly of health care. Zero (outside of Dennis Kucinich).
I would be 100% opposed to any system which would impose a Canadian style government monopoly. But no one is proposing that and no one supports that (save for Kucinich).
(There may be other examples of his argument to that effect as well, but additional examples really aren’t necessary to get the point across.)
Here’s the problem with Larry’s argument: It’s easily, easily refuted.
So, let’s recap this single payer thing. Larry says there’s no support for a single payer system outside of Dennis Kucinich.
Here’s the inconvenient truth. Again.
First, we have President Obama himself.
Roll the tape:
Then we have Senator Barney Frank. (You’ll notice that Frank doesn’t oppose single payer.)
Roll the tape:
Here are some of the people who are behind the scenes pushing this. (Do some reading on Dr. Jacob Hacker and the Tides Foundation).
Roll the tape:
Finally, I’m going to post some videos that haven’t appeared here before.
Here’s Senator John Kerry. (You’ll notice that he doesn’t express an opposition to single payer. He just makes the argument that there aren’t sufficient votes at the moment to get it through.)
Roll the tape:
Senator Mikulski “not opposed to” single payer.
Roll the tape:
Rep. Henry Waxman, not opposed, just not enough votes.
That’s hardly “no current support” or “no one” as Larry claims. There are numerous people on record saying that ObamaCare is step one in a series of moves which will get us to a single payer system.
Finally, be sure to remember all of Larry’s arguments about how great Medicare is.
Remember all of his arguments about patient satisfaction, treatment results, etc, etc.
Remember all of his arguments about how doctors who participate earn “enough” but not “a lot”.
Most importantly, remember too, that Larry opted out of Medicare.
He doesn’t participate in it.
He sings its’ praises to the heavens above but doesn’t participate?
Wonder why that is?
Could it have anything to do with the fact that his Medicare arguments are just words on a page?
I never thought I would see the name of this great country changed.
Welcome to the USSA.
United Socialist States of America.
“Thanks” Obama
“Thanks” Democrats.
“Thanks” to all those who voted for him and any politician supporting this idiocy.
And by now, I am sure if you have one brain cell left, you have figured out that “thanks” is not saying “thank you.”
Under this plan, if it is rammed down our throats like they want to do, I just hope my special needs son can be treated EFFECTIVELY.
If not, I am sure that every democrat on this board will not mind putting their money where their vote was and sending my family the difference in coverage (assuming of course I can get added coverage).
So, Larry, if this goes as is being indicated, when it comes time to have a loved one put down, are you going to give the shot, or are you simply going to let some gov’t flunky do it for ya.
Look at the bright side. We saved money by doing it.
Thanks again for voting Obama.
All I can see is politicians’ hands dipping into the funds and then further rationing.
But thank God we studied how pigeon dung affects bridges!
Norris Hall
14 years ago
My wife and I are in our 60’s and live in the US
We are self employed
My wife has a pacemaker
I am in good health
We have Blue Shield
The most affordable policy we could find at our age was their PPO 4000/8000 plan
Our monthly premiums are $915 per month..
Our deductible is $4000 per year per person.
So basically we are “self insured” since we pay at least $15,000 per person per year for insurance premiums and health care before we can get a dime of help from Blue Shield.
I’ve tried everything I can think of to get our premiums down. Even looked into a small group plan.
It’s gotten to the point that we’ve started going abroad for medical care
For the past 4 years we’ve been saving up all our medical and dental problems and making a 3 week visit to a Thai hospital where the care is excellent and the cost…just a fraction of what I would have to pay out of pocket in the US. For example, last November I had an Endoscopic balloon dilation for a condition known as dysphagia. The specialist in the US said the operation would cost me $2500. (His bill for the 15 minute consultation was $250.) I decided to wait until I got to Thailand and had it done in at Chulalonkorn public hospital…cost $100 including biopsy, (all I needed for ID was my US passport. No questions asked!!)
Our daughter and her husband are young and both work for a company that provides health insurance at an affordable rate. They are happy with health care in the US.
So it just depends on whom you ask.
For us, the US health insurance system is a drain on our resources and we avoid using doctors in the US. It’s worth it for us to travel half way around the world to seek medical care. Yet we still have to pay $11,000 in health insurance premiums every year just to “protect ourselves” against getting hit by a bus.
We are seriously thinking of moving to Thailand for 4-5 years until we can both qualify for medicare.
This is America where we abide by the Constitution. Read it and weep on your way to North Korea you commie!
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
@Real Patriot:
Hey Richard….why the sock?
Darn right the outrage is real. American eagles don’t fancy the cage the government is building for them, and they aren’t going to go quietly into bondage.
Can you believe this would EVER happen in our country? REAL Americans, with REAL concerns are being mocked and criticized by ELECTED OFFICIALS!!!
If they think by intimidating and ridiculing us, that we will quieting fade away into darkness out of fear, they are sorely mistaken.
‘First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, and then you win.’
-Gandi
Real Americans are not only being mocked and ridiculed by the President of the United States, his staff, leaders and members of the Democratic party, the MSN hacks but also unfortunately by AARP, an organization supposedly founded to be an advocate for the elderly 50+ .
You haven’t seen anything yet. They are going to fight like cornered rats. Imagine what they’ve got their opposition research team on. Those little old ladies in the bermudas and t-shirts are about to get a bit of Joe the Plumber treatment.
@Aye Chihuahua:
Hmmm, I wonder:
It’s so good to see how President Obama has brought us all together … a national “Kumbaya” moment.
Everybody sing …
Another chapter in the ongoing Medicare vs Private health care debate:
Fact check:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/mastectomy.asp
Compare and contrast the above with the following:
http://clinicalfreedom.org/HCFA01.HTM
This situation is not at all unusual. In general, Medicare presents fewer problems for patients relating to issues such as the above, as well as offering unsurpassed patient choice in hospitals and doctors, which is why Medicare scores highest with patient satisfaction, while still providing more than adequate profit margins to keep providers in the system, and doing this for substantially less total cost than purely private health care.
For the life of me, I can’t understand why there would be any downside whatsoever to extending Medicare availability to everyone, on a voluntary basis, preserving the option for all providers and patients to opt out, if they wished. It would provide a better health care product at a lower overall cost.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
This is what Medicare’s books look like without universal availability:
But, But, what will all the illegals do to get medical care????
@ Larry
Of course medicare isn’t going to pay any more than they would if you had a minimum hospital stay. They’re just going to mandate hospitals do what they’re told. Which is why so many doctors are opting out.
But not to worry Larry. Under the new program your messiah is implementing, we won’t have to worry about mastectomies and you will be out of business. Oregon has a single payer – universal healthcare thingy for those below the poverty line.
http://abcnews.go.com/m/screen?id=5517492
`snip:
Under the new plan Obama signs, you can report anyone with cancer to: death@whitehouse.gov
Aye re-posted the Medicare cost graph from another thread; so I’ll repost my response:
Aye, your graph of Medicare deficit is not just misleading, it’s incredibly misleading.
The TOTAL cost of Medicare is much less than the total cost of purely “private” healthcare. Add up taxes and insurance premiums and out of pocket payments — it’s much less for Medicare.
Yes, Medicare costs are way more than what were projected. But this isn’t because of “bureaucratic inefficiency” or anything like that. It’s simply because health care costs (including the doctor’s compensation levels shown in my link) have risen much more than other sectors of the economy.
Thank goodness for Medicare. In the absence of Medicare, how do you propose that senior citizens would receive health care? If they could somehow afford to purchase private health insurance, the total costs to the economy would be much more, because it has been proven that private health care is much more expensive than Medicare and the consumer satisfaction with private health care is less than it is with Medicare.
So tell me, Aye, if you take away public health care (Medicare), how are elderly people supposed to get health care? Maybe increase 401Ks? And then there’s another stock market crash and, in addition to no retirement, there’s also no health care?
Or maybe we just take our parents out into the woods and leave them as food for predatory animals, the way the innuit used to do it?
What’s your alternative for senior health care?
What’s your alternative for keeping health care from bankrupting the economy? And don’t go tossing around “tort reform.” That’s a small part of the problem.
P.S. Medicare places fewer restrictions on choice of drugs and other cancer treatments than do the major private health care companies.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Larry, once again you’re building up legions of straw men.
Simply address the facts and figures portrayed on the graph.
Focus man. Focus!
Are Medicare revenues being drastically overrun by Medicare expenses or are they not?
These obvious, and unsustainable, overruns are happening with government “cost control” measures in place.
The figures are from the GAO, the SSA, and the Medicare/Medicaid Actuary Office and are easily verifiable.
If you contend that Medicare revenues are not being overwhelmed by Medicare expenses then certainly you can show some data to support your position.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim: Obama promises more people covered and at lower cost. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to know that means rationing of care. Care delayed is care denied.
But I guess you are OK with that.
Aye, I can’t seem to explain the situation in a way you can understand. I’ll take the responsibility. I’m obviously just not making myself clear.
Yes, Medicare is going broke. Something must be done to fix it. Either revenues must be increased (i.e. taxes must be raised) or else costs must be contained.
But here’s the deal: private health care is in even worse shape. If we turned all of Medicare over to private health care, then who would pay for the insurance premiums for all those old people — most of whom have pre-existinig conditions and all of whom will eventually have fatal conditions?
And, if you could find someone to pay the premiums, then the total cost of those premiums would be much higher than the taxes required to support Medicare.
Now, there are a number of things which could be done. For starters, Congress could lift the prohibition against Medicare negotiating with big pharma for the cost of prescription drugs. This is a huge (and hugely growing expense). There is no reason at all why the American government must pay twice the cost of the Canadian government for the same drug. No reason, save for big pharma having Congress in its pocket. And the GOP has been, by far, the greater obstacle to getting this changed.
Second, we can greatly increase the acceptance of foreign medical graduates as immigrants into the USA. It is a travesty that organized medicine succeeded in getting medical schools to drastically lower enrollments during the late 70s and early 80s. Most medical schools cut back their enrollments by 1/3, from levels existing in the early 1970s. This protected doctors from competition. It produced a gross distortion in the market, by limiting the supply of vendors (doctors), at a time when the number of customers (patients) was exploding. With more doctors, there will be a greater willingness of doctors to provide services, producing competition among doctors, even though it may pain doctors to have their income levels drop.
Thirdly, we can and should have tort reform in malpractice.
Fourth, we can tax employer provided health care benefits.
And these reforms, by themselves, would make Medicare fully solvent, and reduce health care costs globally.
What remains is health insurance reform, which is what Congress will be working on after the recess. But Medicare is the benchmark. It’s the most successful health care system in America, in terms of producing a superior product, with greater customer satisfaction, at a lower overall cost.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Mike, thank you for engaging on this issue.
No one is proposing a British system, much less a Canadian system. The successful models are those in Germany, France, Norway, Sweden, Australia. These are combined private/public systems, with freedom of choice of both providers and patients to participate in either or both. These systems provide superior health outcomes at a much lower net cost and no one goes bankrupt to health care expenses, while, in the USA, the number one cause of personal bankruptcies are health care expenses in people who do have health insurance.
The “insurance” against being the victim of “rationing” is for a patient covered by the public system to have what would be relatively low cost “rationing” insurance. Or else a responsible person could maintain a health savings account for a rainy day.
I wrote earlier that Medicare places fewer restrictions on cancer treatment than do the large private health care plans. Health care is already being “rationed,” whether you know it or not. It’s being rationed every day in health care reimbursement and treatment denials. Most people love their health insurance, because most people don’t get seriously ill. It is only when you get cancer or some other serious condition that you realize just how inadequate private health insurance can be, particularly if you want state of the art treatment.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
>>But here’s the deal: private health care is in even worse shape.>>
But…I thought private health insurance companies were making money hand over fist…?? Is that not true?
I’m not that eloquent as some here so I’ll just let my “art” speak for itself……..
http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w222/RidesAPaleHorse/Obamination/TMTF.jpg
@Rides A Pale Horse:
Nice, Rdes a Pale Horse, says it all!
@openid.aol.com: So I take it you are all in favor of rationing as long as Obama drones at the Dept. of Health get to do the rationing?
No thanks!
P.S. I engaged on this issue weeks ago. Where have you been?
What I meant by the first of the above sentences is this: The cost of providing health care in the purely private sector is even more out of control than in the case of Medicare.
Cost of providing health care = taxes + insurance premiums + patient out of pocket payments + “fraud”
Cost of providing health care in the purely private sector is greater than in the case of Medicare.
Medicare is running a deficit because Medicare taxes are not keeping up with inflationary growth of health care. Purely private health insurance is able to raise its premiums continually, and they continue to do so. This is in the process of bankrupting American businesses (and American families who must pay for their own health insurance; the most common cause of personal bankruptcy are health care expenses in people who have health insurance). Famously, GM pays more for worker health insurance than it pays for steel. But having health insurance does not prevent personal bankruptcy in the event of many types of catastrophic illness.
I have to pay for my own health insurance and I have had a huge problem obtaining what I think is adequate coverage at any price. I still don’t have adequate coverage.
My own philosophy about health insurance is that I don’t need it to cover the small stuff. I don’t carry insurance to pay for out of pocket car repairs. If I need a new transmission, I could be out several thousands of dollars. What I need out of health insurance is for it to pay for catastrophic illness, to prevent me from becoming bankrupt.
I formerly carried $4,000 annual deductible insurance from California Blue Cross, which, several years ago, cost only $7,500 per year. In addition, I carried a terrific catastrophic insurance plan , which I obtained through the American Medical Association, which cost $1,250 per year, with a $20,000 annual deductible. I’d have to pay the first $4,000 for each family member, and then 20% of the next $8,000 and then Blue Cross would pay pretty much 100% after that. Once total expenses (out of pocket plus Blue Cross) exceeded $20,000, my AMA policy promised to pay 100% of literally everything else. I thought that I was set.
However, funny thing happened. Rates for both policies kept going up, until I was paying close to $25,000 per year for both policies. And this was for $4,000 annual deductible for covered family member, which, by this time, consisted only of my, my wife, and the younger of our two kids (the older one having graduated from college).
Then the final shoe dropped: the AMA policy limited its outpatient prescription drug coverage to only $15,000 per year. Why was this a problem? Well, statistically the most likely catastrophic illness is cancer. The newest cancer drugs tend to be oral, outpatient drugs, and these are typically selling for $10,000 PER MONTH! So, if I or my wife or kid needed a year’s worth, this would be $120,000 and my catastrophic insurance would only cover $15,000 of this. Now, Blue Cross would cover more, but only if the drug were used for an “approved” indication. But, increasingly, the new cancer drugs have only a very narrow range of approved indications. A drug approved for kidney cancer might be the most promising thing to treat my colon cancer, in combination with other drug(s), but, because it carries a label indicating it’s only approved for kidney cancer, Blue Cross won’t pay for it.
So I decided that the AMA catastrophic policy just wasn’t worth the $12,000 per year that I was paying for it.
I didn’t think that Blue Cross was good enough as a stand alone policy. I shopped around for months, before deciding on a California Blue Shield (a non-profit) policy with $8,000 per person deductible. This costs $12,000 per year.
So I’ve cut my yearly premiums in half ($25,000 down to $12,000), but, on top of this, I have to pay the first $8,000 per person per year, and I’m still vulnerable for limitations of coverage and non-approval for using expensive cancer drugs for off label indications. The reasons that I went with Blue Shield (non-profit) rather than Blue Cross (for profit) is that the Blue Shield coverage is a little more broad and deep and, in my personal experience in dealing with CA Blue Shield from the provider standpoint, they are much more reasonable in approving cutting edge treatments, when evaluated on a case by case basis.
But, health insurance-wise, it’s a jungle out there. Of course people are happy with their insurance, when the insurance is paid for by someone else and when they aren’t seriously ill. But, just wait until you REALLY need American-style health insurance.
Too often it’s just not there for you.
Medicare is frankly much more reliable.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
>>Cost of providing health care in the purely private sector is greater than in the case of Medicare.>>
Isn’t that largely because Medicare limits the payments it will make to physicians? If you have artificial price controls, it _will_ control costs – and usually results in a shortage of services.
Are you also saying that private insurance companies have a greater problem with fraud than does Medicare?
If so, I’d sure like to see your source for that info…
I thought these were good articles on the topic:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/08/obamacare_and_me.html
http://market-ticker.denninger.net/archives/1310-Fixing-Health-Care-A-Real-Solution.html
Real Patriot, PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE is the single most abused catchall for frivolous spending, worthless programs, earmarks and general mischief that masquerades as “Representing the Constituency.”
The General Welfare Clause sends pork to pay election debts, finances groups like ACORN with taxpayer dollars, builds bridges to nowhere and promotes deficit spending extraordinaire. Find for me, you Constitutional Scholars where publicly funded health care is a Right. Find for me where public funding of groups like ACORN is a Constitutional Mandate. Find for me where subsidizing Wall Street or giving authorization to empower Czars that are not held responsible to the Voters or Vetted by the Senate are Mandated by Law.
Out of Control Government is the Obama, Reid, Pelosi Legacy that will characterize this period in American history. When Government is no longer responsive to the Citizens it is off track. when Congress enacts Programs that cannot be adequately funded they are acting irresponsibly.
Social Security and Medicare are broke. The Health Care reform should have started out with Tort Reform but did not. Congress Office holders that vote on bills they have not read should face Ethics Charges and removal from Office upon conviction but since Dodd and Conrad were cleared of guilt in the Countrywide Mortgage scam the Ethics Committee is a Joke.
Will we see real reform in Health care? Not bloody likely. Will Government be held responsive to the Citizens on this? Nope. Not until 2010. Back to basics and fiscal responsibility will happen when America gets a belly full. The poll numbers suggest just that. There is no urgency that recommends changes in Health care poorly crafted and done in a rush. I want Government out of the Health Care Business, the Auto Industry and other General Welfare baloney that funds ACORN.
Just my take on it. Socialism has never worked anywhere and Social Experiments are not within the Authority or purview of Government.
It’s funny how larry complains about insurance companies tying the hands of doctors, but is all in favor of having the government do it.
Response to Mike, Suek, and Hard Right
Point # 1
Firstly, the “rationing” thing is a red herring. It presupposes that (1) there is only a single payer system, (2) the single payer gets to call all of the shots, and (3) it is illegal to provide or seek health care outside of the single payer system. It is also naive, because it pretends that severe rationing does not already go on in the private sector (where “rationing” is much more severe than in the case of Medicare).
There is not now nor will be in the forseeable future any sort of plausible consensus which would support a Canadian style system. All the systems under serious consideration have competing private systems or competing public and private systems. The private companies whine that a public system would kill them off, but that wasn’t the case in Germany, France, Norway, Sweden, or Australia and I can’t believe that health care entrepreneurs in these “socialist” countries are so much better at competitive capitalism than are US health care entrepreneurs.
Let’s take a worst case scenario. We have a dominant single payer system. What will then spring up will be companies which offer “single payer supplement” insurance, which will be relatively low cost, because the single payer will take care of most needs. The “supplement” would only kick in for “single payer” non-covered services. So no one who was worried about such a possibility need ever be rationed to death.
Fortunately, we have real life experience with “rationing” under private versus public (Medicare) systems. Facts: more “rationing” with the private plans. Facts: Far more difficult to appeal, argue, sue for coverage in the private plans than in the case of Medicare.
Medicare coverage (“rationing”) decisions are made through a process of extraordinarily detailed and transparent technology assessment panels, made up of a collection of eminent, outside physicians, nurses, social workers, and patient representatives, representing both private practice and academia. I once participated in a two day Medicare coverage meeting, held in Baltimore, concerning a particular technology which I provide. Details of the process are described on one of my web sites: http://weisenthal.org –> scroll down to
Here’s a link to a video of my own presentation at this meeting, arguing in favor of coverage for my technology:
http://htaj.com/chemosensitivity_and_resistance_testing.wmv
In contrast to this entirely open and transparent process, all of the major private insurance companies utilize closed reviews, with hand picked panels, either employed by (and therefore dependent on) the individual insurance companies or else retained as paid consultants. These coverage meetings are opaque and closed and not open to the public or to physicians who may wish to attend and make presentations in favor of coverage, such as that made by me in the above-linked video.
So, whereas Mike would ostensibly prefer to have his own care “rationed” by the private sector, I’ll gladly take my chances with the likes of Medicare.
Incidentally, the very last line of appeal (after 5 different levels of appeal) for Medicare denials is the patient’s local congressman. All the Medicare contractors have an in house case manager, who’s job it is to respond to queries by members of Congress regarding obtaining coverage for procedures needed by their constituents. This is an option assuredly not available in the private sector. This constituent service is offered by Republicans and Democrats alike, on a purely non-partisan basis.
Point # 2:
Private sector companies are opaque (see above). CEOs don’t like admitting to being duped. In the case of the public sector, there are strict laws ensuring total transparency. So it’s much easier for the press to learn about Medicare fraud than Blue Cross fraud.
However, this is also a red herring. The key question is total cost. Total cost is easy to determine:
It is (1) taxes + (2) insurance premiums + (3) patient out of pocket payments.
The above revenues go to pay for (1) health care + (2) bureaucracy/management + (3) profits + (4) “fraud.”
These overall costs are higher for private insurance companies than for Medicare, despite Medicare delivering greater patient satisfaction and fewer personal bankruptcies.
#3
Medicare essentially runs like many government agencies: It contracts out needed services to private vendors. Thus, private insurance companies compete to be awarded contracts to administer Medicare in different regions of the country (the California Medicare contractor used to be TransAmerica and then National Heritage Insurance and now Palmetto Insurance). It also signs up physicians to provide services. All physicians know the reimbursement rates before they sign up. None are forced to sign up. All physicians are free to opt out of Medicare if they are unhappy with the reimbursement. If too many opt out, then obviously Medicare would have to increase reimbursement. But it’s a totally voluntary, capitalist system.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim says: ” So, whereas Mike would ostensibly prefer to have his own care “rationed” by the private sector, I’ll gladly take my chances with the likes of Medicare.”
So you admit you are a statist who prefers big government over private enterprise!
Why am I not surprised!
But poor Larry… you just don’t get it do you? The government NEVER does a better job of managing things than the private sector and it ALWAYS ends up costing more than it would otherwise.
Why do you think people are so loathe to hand over MORE POWER to the government?
Good grief. I’ve got 22 years of real life experience dealing with Medicare and private insurance companies on a daily basis. My opinions are based on real life experience and not on a fanciful extrapolation of economic theories which apply to other sectors of the economy, but most assuredly not to health care.
Many a beautiful theory has been ruined by an ugly fact. Medicare provides a better service at a lower cost, resulting in greater patient satisfaction and fewer personal bankruptcies and unsurpassed health care outcomes.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Larry, I deal with medicare from a different angle than you, and I don’t see the “fact” you claim. I do see people not getting what they need.
I had a longer response to your post, but the computer I’m borrowing crashed when I tried to post it.
Health Care Coverage/Insurance can-should always be improved and indeed several great ideas have been presented as options the past few years and voted down (even voted against by a Senator Obama). . .
In 2009, alternatives-to-ObamaCare-reform-proposals have been presented but don’t seem to get any attention by the White House, Senate, or the House as presenters have an R next to their name. . .including:
—————
Patients’ Choice Act Proposal – Also Universal Coverage – And how to pay for It
http://www.house.gov/ryan/PCA/
Even CBS had positive insights on this proposal
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/05/20/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5028816.shtml
—————
My Liberal acquaintances will not even entertain talking about the Patients’ Choice Act/other ideas until I am able to slip in the fact they address how we can provide coverage for all Americans AND how to fund. Further, these proposals do not subscribe to White House Health Care Policy Advisor, Dr Ezekiel Emmanuel’s theories on “health care.”
—————-
Today – another concept was put on the table by Charles Krauthammer. A former MD and Psychiatrist, his concept comes from more insight than his esteemed political analysis fame. Worth the time to at least skim through his suggested two prong approach. Includes Tort reform, universal care coverage, and paying for it all ! Krauthammer, with his credentials and common sense, would be a great replacement for either/both Dr Emmanuel or Secretary of Health & Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, a former governor and trial attorney.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/08/07/health_care_reform_a_better_plan_97804.html
—————-
As this effects all Americans, we should all have a voice…and not let Dr Ezekiel Emmanuel dictate our health care reform…he was not even elected. (If you are not familiar with Rahm’s brother’s health care philosophy/writings — do not delay as he greatly influenced present Congressional Democrat/ObamaCare solution drafts)…be wary.
Larry didn’t answer any of my questions, so I don’t expect to see an answer here. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again; I believe there needs to be some insurance reform.
However, Larry says:
OK Larry, you have 22 years of real life experience. I’m guessing that includes running a business. So, I have a donut store. I make a pretty good profit, keep the lights on, pay my vendors with enough left over to provide for my family. But I have to keep my prices competitive or people will go where the donuts are cheaper. One day, the government decides to put in a donut store across the street from mine. Not only do they not have to make a profit, but they aren’t going to get upset if they go in the hole a little bit. How do I compete with that? I have to lower the quality of my product, decrease the quantity of my product, or most likely, both. And when I do that, my customers are going to still go across the street. Viola, single payer donuts.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim: And my father has more than 30 years dealing with medicaid and medicare as a physician and he still felt compelled to buy expensive supplemental health insurance because he fully understood that government health care is by necessity care delayed and care denied.
Do you have your supplemental policy yet Larry?
But I am glad to see you relate this issue to your real life experience. Unlike your previous prognostications on global warming which were nothing more than hot air.
@Aqua:
Aqua,
Larry is a dancer. He deals in fancy footwork, twirling pirouettes, or “Oooh…shiny” arguments in order to distract you from what the real issues are.
Larry is also an experienced purveyor of myths. He’s done it here over and over and over. Of course, when he’s called on it he gets all indignant and, at times, a bit pouty.
His reactions, however, don’t change the inconvenient facts.
Whenever he is pinned down with a set of facts that don’t fit his argument, he will most likely:
a) claim his debate opponent has presented “misleading” information (but not detail why he labeled it as such),
b) build up a series of straw men and engage in a series of counter questions or arguments in order to not address the matter at hand,
c) repeat the same series of previously refuted arguments, even though they don’t fit the current set of facts,
d) not respond at all, perhaps subsequently blaming it on being “busy”, or being unable to respond to more than one debate opponent at the time.
Here’s a prime example of (c). Larry said:
He made the same basic argument here:
and here:
(There may be other examples of his argument to that effect as well, but additional examples really aren’t necessary to get the point across.)
Here’s the problem with Larry’s argument: It’s easily, easily refuted.
In fact, I did so here and here.
In addition, Mata did an entire thread strictly on the single payer issue. Guess what. No Larry in the comments at all. None. Guess he was “too busy”.
So, let’s recap this single payer thing. Larry says there’s no support for a single payer system outside of Dennis Kucinich.
Here’s the inconvenient truth. Again.
First, we have President Obama himself.
Roll the tape:
Then we have Senator Barney Frank. (You’ll notice that Frank doesn’t oppose single payer.)
Roll the tape:
Here are some of the people who are behind the scenes pushing this. (Do some reading on Dr. Jacob Hacker and the Tides Foundation).
Roll the tape:
Finally, I’m going to post some videos that haven’t appeared here before.
Here’s Senator John Kerry. (You’ll notice that he doesn’t express an opposition to single payer. He just makes the argument that there aren’t sufficient votes at the moment to get it through.)
Roll the tape:
Senator Mikulski “not opposed to” single payer.
Roll the tape:
Rep. Henry Waxman, not opposed, just not enough votes.
Roll the tape:
HR 676 now has 93 Co-Sponsors in addition to Rep. John Conyers, the sponsor.
That’s hardly “no current support” or “no one” as Larry claims. There are numerous people on record saying that ObamaCare is step one in a series of moves which will get us to a single payer system.
Finally, be sure to remember all of Larry’s arguments about how great Medicare is.
Remember all of his arguments about patient satisfaction, treatment results, etc, etc.
Remember all of his arguments about how doctors who participate earn “enough” but not “a lot”.
Most importantly, remember too, that Larry opted out of Medicare.
He doesn’t participate in it.
He sings its’ praises to the heavens above but doesn’t participate?
Wonder why that is?
Could it have anything to do with the fact that his Medicare arguments are just words on a page?
I never thought I would see the name of this great country changed.
Welcome to the USSA.
United Socialist States of America.
“Thanks” Obama
“Thanks” Democrats.
“Thanks” to all those who voted for him and any politician supporting this idiocy.
And by now, I am sure if you have one brain cell left, you have figured out that “thanks” is not saying “thank you.”
Under this plan, if it is rammed down our throats like they want to do, I just hope my special needs son can be treated EFFECTIVELY.
If not, I am sure that every democrat on this board will not mind putting their money where their vote was and sending my family the difference in coverage (assuming of course I can get added coverage).
So, Larry, if this goes as is being indicated, when it comes time to have a loved one put down, are you going to give the shot, or are you simply going to let some gov’t flunky do it for ya.
Look at the bright side. We saved money by doing it.
Thanks again for voting Obama.
All I can see is politicians’ hands dipping into the funds and then further rationing.
But thank God we studied how pigeon dung affects bridges!
My wife and I are in our 60’s and live in the US
We are self employed
My wife has a pacemaker
I am in good health
We have Blue Shield
The most affordable policy we could find at our age was their PPO 4000/8000 plan
Our monthly premiums are $915 per month..
Our deductible is $4000 per year per person.
So basically we are “self insured” since we pay at least $15,000 per person per year for insurance premiums and health care before we can get a dime of help from Blue Shield.
I’ve tried everything I can think of to get our premiums down. Even looked into a small group plan.
It’s gotten to the point that we’ve started going abroad for medical care
For the past 4 years we’ve been saving up all our medical and dental problems and making a 3 week visit to a Thai hospital where the care is excellent and the cost…just a fraction of what I would have to pay out of pocket in the US. For example, last November I had an Endoscopic balloon dilation for a condition known as dysphagia. The specialist in the US said the operation would cost me $2500. (His bill for the 15 minute consultation was $250.) I decided to wait until I got to Thailand and had it done in at Chulalonkorn public hospital…cost $100 including biopsy, (all I needed for ID was my US passport. No questions asked!!)
Our daughter and her husband are young and both work for a company that provides health insurance at an affordable rate. They are happy with health care in the US.
So it just depends on whom you ask.
For us, the US health insurance system is a drain on our resources and we avoid using doctors in the US. It’s worth it for us to travel half way around the world to seek medical care. Yet we still have to pay $11,000 in health insurance premiums every year just to “protect ourselves” against getting hit by a bus.
We are seriously thinking of moving to Thailand for 4-5 years until we can both qualify for medicare.