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.
“Even on background, they will never touch that. They don’t want to be accused of crying race.” etc.
Goes on to say that it’s only outsiders, not part of the Administration, who make those claims.
LW/HB
P.S. Here’s my prediction. Health Care will get passed. The American people will love it, as they loved Medicare and as they are loving the equally controversial Prescription Drug Law passed by Bush. Just like it is in every country in the world in which a government health care plan got enacted into law. Wildly popular, even in places like Canada and Britain, who have two of the suckiest health care programs in the Western World, in contradistinction to the vastly superior system in France, which is where I’m very sure Obamacare is headed. And Obama will get the credit for standing up to withering criticism, from both Right and Left, to get it done. The more the criticism heaped on him now, the more a profile in political courage and political competence he will be come to be viewed. Judge the greatness of a leader by the strength of his enemies. It’s always been that way. It’s easy to get things done when everyone agrees with you and when your poll numbers are in the 60s. It’s vastly more difficult when many vocal people don’t agree with you and when your poll numbers are tanking. I look forward and I can easily see a political legend, in the making, right before our very eyes.
Larry W: Here’s my prediction. Health Care will get passed. The American people will love it, as they loved Medicare and as they are loving the equally controversial Prescription Drug Law passed by Bush. Just like it is in every country in the world in which a government health care plan got enacted into law. Wildly popular, even in places like Canada and Britain, who have two of the suckiest health care programs in the Western World, in contradistinction to the vastly superior system in France, which is where I’m very sure Obamacare is headed.
The question was never whether a population would be happy with what they consider getting “free” care… even if substandard quality. The real issue is being “happy” with a fiscal loser that bankrupts a nation, just as it is doing to France, Canada, etc. You continually look at it from the “satisfaction of consumer angle” instead of the more important “sustainable” viewpoint.
So remind me to put it on my calendar to congratulate you for your predictions and support when the US finds themselves economically tanked due to healthcare restructuring instead of healthcare cost reform.
Mata, People have to get health care, one way or the other. It has to be paid for, one way or the other. So the issue is this: What is the total cost?
The total cost of health care in places like France is much less than in the USA, and even the GOP leadership agrees that we have to do something to bring down costs. The quality of French health care is better and the satisfaction level among people who actually get sick enough to need major health care is better, as they don’t need to go bankrupt paying for it. You add up the whole costs (taxes plus insurance premiums plus out of pocket patient payments) and it’s lower for Medicare than for Blue Cross, Aetna, US Healthcare, etc. Patient satisfaction greater for Medicare. Lower for the French by far than for us. If health care threatens to bankrupt France, it threatens to bankrupt us at a faster rate. Choice of doctors and hospitals superior for Medicare. Pre-authorizations are a headache in private sector, but not for Medicare. Personal bankruptcies lower for Medicare. Quality of care unsurpassed.
Larry, we keep going over this. The legislation on the table is *not* the French health care. Not even close.
As I continually point out to you, France has no malpractice laws (ahem… tort reform?). Also the nation pays for their doctors education (no student loans as overhead, also cutting down on a physicians cost of business). My my… those two things alone go a long way in cutting a provider’s costs.
Quality better? Perhaps in some areas, and deficient in others. Your blanket statement of quality is not correct. They are not superior care to the US in cancer, nor modernized equipment (and numbers of hospitals with modern equipment). Pregnant in France? Lots of glowing reports there. Not so much the other ones.
The point is, we don’t need to remake the US health care system. We need to reform the costs.. i.e. bureaucratic streamling eliminating unnecessary tests and record keeping, allow wealthy seniors to opt out of Medicare without forfeiting their SS retirement checks, tort reform, more “groups” for individuals to become part of so they too cannot be denied pre’existing conditions, and yes… even your suggested power for providers to negotiate the best prices for drugs and equipment. Another suggestion would be to ignore Congressional recently bestowed patent power of 12 years for pharma so that it doesn’t take so long for competition to provide alternatives.
See any of these things in Obama’s bill? In fact, do you see anything that even resembles Obama’s fantasy bill he discussed last night, in HR 3200?
But of course not… because it’s a sales pitch for a bottle of snake oil.
A program that is gov’t run and not gov’t run at the same time (according to some).
A program that is so great and fantastical that its’ most ardent rooftop shouting supporters choose to opt out instead of participating in its’ greatness.
The truth about Medicare:
Tom in CA
14 years ago
I think Obama is doing a fine job of tanking the entire economic system without any restructuring healthcare nonsense. Get real partner.
Why don’t you show a much more meaningful graph: Comparison of the rise in TOTAL health care costs (taxes + insurance premiums + out of pocket patient costs) for Medicare compared to Blue Cross or any other private health care plan of your choosing?
The reason for the huge rise in Medicare cost has nothing at all to do with bureaucratic inefficiency or graft or corruption or any of the other tired old saws. Back in the 1960s, when Medicare was passed, medicine was primitive. Today, it is incredibly sophisticated. The changes which have occurred, just in the time since I finished med school, are mind numbing — my mind gets numb, just from trying to keep up, which perhaps explains my non-Flopping Aces mentality in many things political 🙂
Anyway, thank goodness for Medicare. If not for Medicare, health care costs for the elderly would today have been much higher and we’d all go bankrupt, trying to take care of our parents.
the huge rise in Medicare cost has nothing at all to do with bureaucratic inefficiency or graft or corruption or any of the other tired old saws.
Then how is it that Dear Leader said last night that this new super-de-dooper national health plan that he wants will be paid for by cutting….wait for it….WASTE & FRAUD & GRAFT & CORRUPTION?
If it doesn’t exist then how will it be reduced/eliminated to have the resultant savings applied to the new programs?
Kindly ‘splain that one to me.
Also, since this fraud, graft, and corruption is a non-issue then why have there been so many indictments, prosecutions, and convictions for those offenses?
Damn Larry….at least make this somewhat of a challenge for me.
@Aye, There is waste, fraud, graft and corruption in health care paid for by Blue Cross, as much or more than in health care paid for my Medicare. Waste, fraud, graft, and corruption don’t refer to the federal bureaucrats who administer Medicare, but rather to the doctors, clinics, drug companies, medical equipment manufacturers, etc. who bill Medicare (and who also bill Blue Cross and Aetna and whomever else you wish to name). You’ll hear more about shortcomings in government-administered sytems (e.g. Medicare, the VA, etc.) than you’ll hear about in privately-administered systems, because government programs have much more legal pressures for transparency (including much greater whistle-blower protections) than do private programs.
A personal question: do you really derive a sense of satisfaction out of personal taunting like that?
the huge rise in Medicare cost has nothing at all to do with bureaucratic inefficiency or graft or corruption or any of the other tired old saws.
Then when I point out the disparity of your position and Obie’s plans you come back with this in #8:
Waste, fraud, graft, and corruption don’t refer to the federal bureaucrats who administer Medicare, but rather to the doctors, clinics, drug companies, medical equipment manufacturers, etc. who bill Medicare (and who also bill Blue Cross and Aetna and whomever else you wish to name).
So, which is it?
Does it exist or doesn’t it?
You gotta make up your mind man…you can’t keep playing both sides of the fence.
A personal question: do you really derive a sense of satisfaction out of personal taunting like that?
Personal taunting? That’s funny.
Don’t even start with the “why’s everyone pickin’ on me?” routine.
I have neither the time nor the patience for it and there was nothing personal in anything I wrote.
You have chosen to come in here and debate. You’ve laid out your points, in all their pretzel logic glory, and I’m simply demonstrating that your arguments are invalid.
At times it appears that you’re arguing with yourself.
Hard Right
14 years ago
“…I can easily see a political legend, in the making, right before our very eyes.”
Buwahahahahahahaha!
I can see delusional larry being fitted for a straight jacket. Stop sucking nitrous, Dr.
(BTW, that was taunting since you are unclear on what that entails.)
The sad truth is that larry will blame everyone but obama if the “reform” turns out exactly like we said it would. Larry, you’re no longer a moonbat. More like a Plutobat. You are out there.
the huge rise in Medicare cost has nothing at all to do with bureaucratic inefficiency or graft or corruption or any of the other tired old saws.
You said:
Then how is it that Dear Leader said last night that this new super-de-dooper national health plan that he wants will be paid for by cutting….wait for it….WASTE & FRAUD & GRAFT & CORRUPTION?
If it doesn’t exist then how will it be reduced/eliminated to have the resultant savings applied to the new programs?
Kindly ’splain that one to me.
I explained that health care in general is plagued with waste, fraud, graft, and corruption, but this is entirely on the provider side, and pertains just as much to privately administered health care insurance as to federally administered health care insurance.
Now you come back with:
So, which is it?
Does it exist or doesn’t it?
You gotta make up your mind man…you can’t keep playing both sides of the fence.
To which I reply: What on earth are you talking about? I’m not “playing both sides of the fence.” The fraud and graft and corruption parts of it are actually trivial (in comparison to the entire health care portion of the economy). Almost a rounding error. But, however big this is, it applies equally or more so to the private sector funded side.
Where the savings is to be had is in the “waste” side of it. That’s the only thing which can control costs, to a meaningful extent.
By the way, Malpractice tort reform in Texas did nothing to reduce health care expenditures; it only fattened the wallets of providers.
Larry, we keep going over this. The legislation on the table is *not* the French health care. Not even close.
As I continually point out to you, France has no malpractice laws (ahem… tort reform?). Also the nation pays for their doctors education (no student loans as overhead, also cutting down on a physicians cost of business). My my… those two things alone go a long way in cutting a provider’s costs.
Quality better? Perhaps in some areas, and deficient in others. Your blanket statement of quality is not correct. They are not superior care to the US in cancer, nor modernized equipment (and numbers of hospitals with modern equipment). Pregnant in France? Lots of glowing reports there. Not so much the other ones.
This first step is on a path to a French system, the basic structure is this:
1. Private physicians, not employed by the government (as they are in Britain).
2. Private hospitals
3. “Public option” health insurance, which provides for a baseline level of care, for everyone. Although only a small part of the initial plan, I completely agree that this would grow to be the plan of choice for the majority of Americans, as it is in France.
4. Ready availability of private insurance, for anyone who wanted a concierge level of service, or was worried about “rationing,” etc. The Canadian system doesn’t allow this. France does and Obamacare will.
This is exactly what is being proposed by Obamacare (generically defined). Or, rather, that’s the way it’s obviously headed.
The French are probably leading the world right now, in cancer care, by the way. They have more cancer mortality, but that’s because they drink like fishes and alcohol is a huge contributing factor to cancer. They also have more deaths from cirrhosis, but that’s not because their health care for cirrhotics is inferior. Quite the contrary. Their death rate from heart disease is a small fraction of that in the USA, but this is not so much that they are so much better at treating it (though I believe that they are better at treating it), it’s because they have much less heart disease, because of lifestyle differences.
Malpractice tort reform is doing nothing to reduce health care costs in Texas. It’s simply fattening providers’ wallets.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Timothy
14 years ago
Many of these places have had habitual unemployment 10% or worse and economies that are stagnent. Baby boomers and debt are the 900 pound guerilla no one wants to talk about.
Ahhh France…land of high protectionism and 35 hour work weeks. Highly bureaucratic, highly taxed and having problems with its Arab immigrant population where slum intafadas are the newest sport.
UK? Once you’re old or sick, time for the death chute. No thanks. Got AMD? Tough luck boyo….have to lose sight in one eye before they can treat you.
No thanks….we got enough socialism as it is (socsec, medicare, medicade, prescription drugs). I think it’s more than just a small band of vocal opponents.
People are waking up to the BS (those who pay taxes). The debt will be coming back to bite us. Medicare and Medicade are BROKE and SocSec is going BUST. Sorry, but the American people are gonna freek when it comes time to pay the piper. I don’t think the US public will just bend over like the EUROS. Our historical path, culturally, is different from them.
When everyone was young, and you had a high proportion of taxpayers to recipiants, things may of been good (a long honeymoon), but now the demographics and economics are crashing. I’d rather be sick in the US than in the UK.
Larry W: This first step is on a path to a French system, the basic structure is this:
1. Private physicians, not employed by the government (as they are in Britain).
2. Private hospitals
3. “Public option” health insurance, which provides for a baseline level of care, for everyone. Although only a small part of the initial plan, I completely agree that this would grow to be the plan of choice for the majority of Americans, as it is in France.
4. Ready availability of private insurance, for anyone who wanted a concierge level of service, or was worried about “rationing,” etc. The Canadian system doesn’t allow this. France does and Obamacare will.
This is exactly what is being proposed by Obamacare (generically defined). Or, rather, that’s the way it’s obviously headed.
Interesting concept, Larry. This is like you and another baker eyeing a cake baking in the oven. He sees a wedding layer cake with white frosting, decorated with roses. You see a cake with fruit compote, decorated with whipped cream. THe cake’s not even out of the oven yet…
But both your visions started as cake layers, still in the oven. uh huh
I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program. I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its Gross National Product on health care cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that’s what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that’s what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House.
Oh… that was then, you might say. How about yesterday? Think his quest for single payer has diminished?
To my progressive friends, I would remind you that for decades, the driving idea behind reform has been to end insurance company abuses and make coverage affordable for those without it. The public option is only a means to that end – and we should remain open to other ideas that accomplish our ultimate goal. And to my Republican friends, I say that rather than making wild claims about a government takeover of health care, we should work together to address any legitimate concerns you may have.
As yes… a means to an end. The same “step” tactic as confirmed by his political significant other, Rahm’bo, when asked if Obama backpeddled on single payer.
The objective is what’s important, not the means.
How about the rest who are in power? Do they share your vision for a fruit compote, or a wedding cake? (H/T to Skye for her Aug 23rd post)
ooops… lots of wedding cake visions in there.
Then you come in pro-French, anti-Canadian. Odd… Canada started off just like this… steps… And in fact, there is about 30% of the Canadian health sector paid for by that private sector you say doesn’t exist, and about 65% of all Canadians have some sort of supplementary private insurance. In fact, the Canadian Health Act of 1984 does not bar or prohibit private insurance. It merely makes it economically unattractive, and throws in financial disincentives. Hummm… does that sound familiar, or what?
However, as Obama and all economists… and you, yourself… admit, the bulk of the nation will go over to the public option. Tommy Douglas wanted single payer/universal health care when he passed the Saskatchewan Hospitalization Act in that province back in 1946. Ooops…. the province was too poor for it to happen. But in Alberta, they passed a similar proposal that ended up as the coverage for 90% of the provincial residents. Guess the private sector couldn’t compete, eh?
Canada, France… neither are solvent, nor sustainable. And breaking the bank to achieve what has historically failed in every avenue is no “cure”.
Obama says his $500 bil Medicare cuts are only supposed to be eliminating “waste” and “fraud”. You say there is no waste or fraud…. ala illegal billing, non existent medical equipment, etc. Okay… Even the left fringe MSNBC ran a two part article about Medicare fraud.
Now how do you suggest they eliminate fraud, Larry? Billing still will happen, and for every crook they catch, another crops up. Eliminating “fraud” is like saying confiscate all guns and you’ll eliminate crime. Absurd. By heavens, it can be the new “war on poverty” or “war on drugs”… another federal behemoth lloser.
“For every dollar spent to investigate and prosecute health care fraud in
civil cases, the federal government receives fifteen dollars back in return.
Let’s see… Obama wants to cut Medicare costs by $500 bil. So to do that, we spend $333.3 bil somewhere else that gets added to the national debt, not to mention keeps those trial lawyers employed. So where are we going to get that $333.3 bil to save the $500 bil? And doesn’t that mean we really only saved $166.6 bil in the difference, and we’ll really have to spend a trillion just to see the $500 bil savings in fraud?
Does not compute…. more fuzzy math. But I’m sure they’ll spin it as a savings, without pointing out the increases elsewhere. Because lies are politics… politics are lies.
INRE Texas and malpractice… you do so like to dismiss the French, who have no malpractice laws. Certainly keeps their costs lower, tho many would like to argue this limits those that are wronged by government run medical care. I might want to point out that the only malpractice limitations will be on the public option. You surely don’t think Congress and Obama are going to allow the government insured individual to sue the feds, do you? So it will tort reform for them, none for the private insurers. And when they are gone, all tort laws will disappear to protect the government.
The reforms have resulted in drastically lower malpractice premiums. Many doctors have left Texas through the years or chose not to practice there because of the fear of an expensive lawsuit. Since the reforms were enacted, many new and former doctors who left the state have flooded into Texas and patients have enjoyed increased access to care.
Medical licenses increased 18 percent in the past four years. Between 2003 and 2007, the Texas Medical Board licensed about 2,500 more new physicians than it did during the previous four years. In total, more than 7,000 new doctors have come to the state.
The physician population in Texas has grown twice as fast as the general population. And the state has jumped six places in the American Medical Association’s tally of doctors per capita.
One big medical malpractice insurer has dropped its premiums by 35 percent. That translates into $217 million in cost savings for doctors. Statewide, medical malpractice premiums have decreased 21.3 percent.
Isn’t the goal to reduce the costs for providers? Dropping their E&O by 35% is one healthy start.
In a bizarre tangent, a study by Tradewatch in 2003, the same year the malpractice reform was passed, noted that most of the malpractice suits were by repeat offender doctors, and caused by “…the unreliable quality of medical care being delivered by a relatively small proportion of doctors – a problem that health-care providers have not adequately addressed.”
Well lookie there, Larry… by doing malpractice reform, making private practice more feasible in Texas, they’ve upped the amount of physicians, and improved the options for quality care. I guess that relatively small proportion of doctors was improved by the very legislation Tradewatch was arguing against.
But why didn’t it drop the end user premiums? A few reasons.
One being that malpractice is only about 5% of the rising costs. Even tho there is actually a decline in the amount of claims filed in both states with malpractice reform, as well as states with none, the amount of dollars awarded is going up exponentially. And as if that isn’t enough, the defense costs have double the award amounts for both hospitals and physicials. Fighting these is, again, more a benefit for the trial lawyers… not the providers, nor the petitioners.
Therefore malpractice reform – by itself – does little to punch a hole in the rest of the rising costs to the insurers and end consumers. But it goes a long mile in reducing the costs of a provider… and as part of a more complete package, it becomes cumulative.
People may as well start getting used to not being able to sue… because O’healthcare will not be providing that option either.
Mata, we are arguing semantics. What does “single payer” really mean? Does it really mean outlawing private insurance? There is ZERO possibility of that ever happening in this country. The only country in the Western world with true single payer is Canada. All of the Western European countries have private insurance, for those who want it. Australia, too. I doubt seriously that Obama in 2003 really knew all that much about health care. What’s important is 2009.
The business about France going bankrupt. You are doing the same thing as Aye. You are failing to realize that the true cost of health care is (1) taxes + (2) insurance premiums + (3) out of pocket costs. The French pay 1/3 less than we do, for a much better product. Every Western country has problems with rising health care costs; the problems in the USA are greater than anywhere else, because we have one of the worst systems. Less bang for more bucks.
Malpractice reform: I’m in favor, and Obama is being strongly nudged in that direction, but it is true that the only thing malpractice reform in Texas has accomplished is to put more money in the hands of providers. There is no evidence that any saving has been passed on to the people who pay for health care. Malpractice reform is worth doing, but it won’t do anything substantial for health care costs. The economic benefits of such reform have been way overstated by the GOP.
I wrote elsewhere that “fraud” is a rounding error in the health care economy. And it’s as bad in the private sector as in the public sector. The only real savings to be had is in reducing unnecessary services. There is also, to my knowledge, no evidence that malpractice reform in Texas has reduced utilization of “defensive medicine” procedures, by the way. ANY malpractice suit is an enormous problem for any physician. Whether or not there is a cap on “pain and suffering” awards.
But I really did like your cake analogy. Not at all half-baked.
The only country in the Western world with true single payer is Canada.
As I pointed out above, Larry, private insurers are not prohibited by law. They are *discouraged* by law and financial disincentives. I also pointed out that over half of the Canadians have a private supplemental insurance.
By your own “single payer” description, there go us in the US.
Regardless of whether France and Canada “pay less” for a “better product”, their health costs are also nearing national bankruptcy as well. And the only way they will cure that is to “pay more”, and “cut coverage and benefits”. Very simple, really.
The only way to cure the health care crisis in both public and private systems is to “pay more” and “cut coverage.”
Why is Medicare (and France) going bankrupt, while Blue Cross isn’t going bankrupt? Because of private sector efficiency?
Not exactly. Blue Cross raises its insurance premiums by 30% per year. Medicare can’t get away with raising Medicare taxes 30% per year. Blue Cross makes its subscribers pay more — pay much more. Government can’t do this.
Blue Cross rations care much more than Medicare does. Blue Cross raises premiums 30% per year. Medicare doesn’t. You don’t want any “rationing?” Easy, pay more insurance premiums and pay more taxes. Don’t want your premiums or taxes to go up? Easy, start rationing.
But, whether Medicare or France, public insurance works better than private insurance.
Not happy with “free” public insurance? Just buy supplemental private insurance. It’s what they do in France and the rest of Europe. It’s what we’ll also do in the USA.
Mike Huckabee had the best health care plan, by the way.
1. Don’t be overweight.
2. Exercise
3. Don’t smoke
4. Improve the quality of your diet.
Now THAT would really reduce the cost of health care.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Timothy
14 years ago
I have relatives in Canada and the UK and can give an earfull about the “public option”
One of my uncles had to go Stateside for an operation because of constant delays and lack of service. He’s 75 and needed his right knee replaced and got fed up with the pill mantra. He offered to pay out of pocket and was told “NO”. He ended up going to Detroit. One of his friends also had to go to Detroit as well for an angioplasty after numerous delays (was told his blockage WASN’T THAT SERIOUS and could wait).
My Grandmother’s neighbor in Vancouver had cataracts and needed a simple operation (in the US, such a proceedure takes about 20-30 minutes for each eye and is an outpatient proceedure). The gentleman got fed up after waiting eight months and went to Seattle for the proceedure. In Canada, if you do get the operation, you will only be offered the single vision implants and won’t have the option of buying the improved versions.
My Aunt in the UK has AMD and was told that a drug is available for treatment. However, it won’t be offered until vision is lost in one eye. By that time, it might be too late for the other eye as well.
Want cutting edge medical research for new drugs and treatments? Like stem cell research? Forget it. Costs for R & D is too high and costs in a gov’t system will become the bottom line. There’s only so much in the budget to spend.
Think it will be equal for all? ARE YOU KIDDING ME!!! Those with money, power and connections will find themselves either exempt, bumped up on the list, go overseas or simply opt out for private clinics (just like in Canada and the UK). It will be the same as before gov’t involvement but only this time with massive taxes and gov’t regulations.
I don’t care for a public option, public option lite or the “trigger option” for it will only lead, in time, to a single-payer and government monopoly. The current bill in the House basically “grandfathers/kills” private insurance and heards people into a gov’t system. The Senate version ushers a ton of new taxes and regulations. Sometimes I wonder if it’s really about healthcare or simply a power grab. One started, it will become just another voting block and another source of campaign contributions.
Ditto
14 years ago
There will ALWAYS be waste, fraud, corruption and abuse in government run programs. It has happened in probably every government program that was ever instituted. Any politician who claims that they will get rid of it all is lying. A government run health-care system will bring with it it’s own waste and abuse of the system. Obama is playing a con game here and he thinks we are the suckers.
There is nothing in any health reform bill under consideration which has any resemblance at all to the systems of Canada (single payer monopoly) or Britain (doctors work for government; hospitals owned by government). The much more valid comparisons are France, Germany, Sweden, Norway, Australia.
Compare Medicare with Blue Cross (or Aetna or United Health Care) and, by any criterion you care to choose, Medicare wins. The usual rules of economics don’t apply to health care, anymore than they’d apply were police or military services (which also protect the public) completely privatized. Or university-level education, for that matter, as Obama pointed out in his speech.
This form of conformist propaganda is silly… It is repeated as often as possible that “this legislation will pass”. The intention is to build a herd mentality and discourage the opposition, despite the reality that the likelihood of the bill’s passing is very small.
“So hop on the bandwagon and don’t be a loser.”
Individuality is going to suffer as the Democratic Party, ACORN, SEIU, MoveOn and the whole leftwing conformity machine continues to propagandize so blatantly.
Dissent could be crushed with the constant application of propaganda (the media), indoctrination (the education system), legal persecution (activist lawyers/judges), nepotistic government legislation, etc… Just look at what happened to Palin.
However, I think Middle America is too big to be disenfranchised for much longer. Even with liberals choking the reigns of elitist power.
This Administration will not make it to the end of its term at this rate…
“Even on background, they will never touch that. They don’t want to be accused of crying race.” etc.
Goes on to say that it’s only outsiders, not part of the Administration, who make those claims.
LW/HB
P.S. Here’s my prediction. Health Care will get passed. The American people will love it, as they loved Medicare and as they are loving the equally controversial Prescription Drug Law passed by Bush. Just like it is in every country in the world in which a government health care plan got enacted into law. Wildly popular, even in places like Canada and Britain, who have two of the suckiest health care programs in the Western World, in contradistinction to the vastly superior system in France, which is where I’m very sure Obamacare is headed. And Obama will get the credit for standing up to withering criticism, from both Right and Left, to get it done. The more the criticism heaped on him now, the more a profile in political courage and political competence he will be come to be viewed. Judge the greatness of a leader by the strength of his enemies. It’s always been that way. It’s easy to get things done when everyone agrees with you and when your poll numbers are in the 60s. It’s vastly more difficult when many vocal people don’t agree with you and when your poll numbers are tanking. I look forward and I can easily see a political legend, in the making, right before our very eyes.
The question was never whether a population would be happy with what they consider getting “free” care… even if substandard quality. The real issue is being “happy” with a fiscal loser that bankrupts a nation, just as it is doing to France, Canada, etc. You continually look at it from the “satisfaction of consumer angle” instead of the more important “sustainable” viewpoint.
So remind me to put it on my calendar to congratulate you for your predictions and support when the US finds themselves economically tanked due to healthcare restructuring instead of healthcare cost reform.
Mata, People have to get health care, one way or the other. It has to be paid for, one way or the other. So the issue is this: What is the total cost?
The total cost of health care in places like France is much less than in the USA, and even the GOP leadership agrees that we have to do something to bring down costs. The quality of French health care is better and the satisfaction level among people who actually get sick enough to need major health care is better, as they don’t need to go bankrupt paying for it. You add up the whole costs (taxes plus insurance premiums plus out of pocket patient payments) and it’s lower for Medicare than for Blue Cross, Aetna, US Healthcare, etc. Patient satisfaction greater for Medicare. Lower for the French by far than for us. If health care threatens to bankrupt France, it threatens to bankrupt us at a faster rate. Choice of doctors and hospitals superior for Medicare. Pre-authorizations are a headache in private sector, but not for Medicare. Personal bankruptcies lower for Medicare. Quality of care unsurpassed.
Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Larry, we keep going over this. The legislation on the table is *not* the French health care. Not even close.
As I continually point out to you, France has no malpractice laws (ahem… tort reform?). Also the nation pays for their doctors education (no student loans as overhead, also cutting down on a physicians cost of business). My my… those two things alone go a long way in cutting a provider’s costs.
Quality better? Perhaps in some areas, and deficient in others. Your blanket statement of quality is not correct. They are not superior care to the US in cancer, nor modernized equipment (and numbers of hospitals with modern equipment). Pregnant in France? Lots of glowing reports there. Not so much the other ones.
The point is, we don’t need to remake the US health care system. We need to reform the costs.. i.e. bureaucratic streamling eliminating unnecessary tests and record keeping, allow wealthy seniors to opt out of Medicare without forfeiting their SS retirement checks, tort reform, more “groups” for individuals to become part of so they too cannot be denied pre’existing conditions, and yes… even your suggested power for providers to negotiate the best prices for drugs and equipment. Another suggestion would be to ignore Congressional recently bestowed patent power of 12 years for pharma so that it doesn’t take so long for competition to provide alternatives.
See any of these things in Obama’s bill? In fact, do you see anything that even resembles Obama’s fantasy bill he discussed last night, in HR 3200?
But of course not… because it’s a sales pitch for a bottle of snake oil.
Ah yes, Medicare.
A program that is gov’t run and not gov’t run at the same time (according to some).
A program that is so great and fantastical that its’ most ardent rooftop shouting supporters choose to opt out instead of participating in its’ greatness.
The truth about Medicare:
I think Obama is doing a fine job of tanking the entire economic system without any restructuring healthcare nonsense. Get real partner.
@Aye.
Why don’t you show a much more meaningful graph: Comparison of the rise in TOTAL health care costs (taxes + insurance premiums + out of pocket patient costs) for Medicare compared to Blue Cross or any other private health care plan of your choosing?
The reason for the huge rise in Medicare cost has nothing at all to do with bureaucratic inefficiency or graft or corruption or any of the other tired old saws. Back in the 1960s, when Medicare was passed, medicine was primitive. Today, it is incredibly sophisticated. The changes which have occurred, just in the time since I finished med school, are mind numbing — my mind gets numb, just from trying to keep up, which perhaps explains my non-Flopping Aces mentality in many things political 🙂
Anyway, thank goodness for Medicare. If not for Medicare, health care costs for the elderly would today have been much higher and we’d all go bankrupt, trying to take care of our parents.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Then how is it that Dear Leader said last night that this new super-de-dooper national health plan that he wants will be paid for by cutting….wait for it….WASTE & FRAUD & GRAFT & CORRUPTION?
If it doesn’t exist then how will it be reduced/eliminated to have the resultant savings applied to the new programs?
Kindly ‘splain that one to me.
Also, since this fraud, graft, and corruption is a non-issue then why have there been so many indictments, prosecutions, and convictions for those offenses?
Damn Larry….at least make this somewhat of a challenge for me.
@Aye, There is waste, fraud, graft and corruption in health care paid for by Blue Cross, as much or more than in health care paid for my Medicare. Waste, fraud, graft, and corruption don’t refer to the federal bureaucrats who administer Medicare, but rather to the doctors, clinics, drug companies, medical equipment manufacturers, etc. who bill Medicare (and who also bill Blue Cross and Aetna and whomever else you wish to name). You’ll hear more about shortcomings in government-administered sytems (e.g. Medicare, the VA, etc.) than you’ll hear about in privately-administered systems, because government programs have much more legal pressures for transparency (including much greater whistle-blower protections) than do private programs.
A personal question: do you really derive a sense of satisfaction out of personal taunting like that?
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
In #6 you said:
Then when I point out the disparity of your position and Obie’s plans you come back with this in #8:
So, which is it?
Does it exist or doesn’t it?
You gotta make up your mind man…you can’t keep playing both sides of the fence.
Personal taunting? That’s funny.
Don’t even start with the “why’s everyone pickin’ on me?” routine.
I have neither the time nor the patience for it and there was nothing personal in anything I wrote.
You have chosen to come in here and debate. You’ve laid out your points, in all their pretzel logic glory, and I’m simply demonstrating that your arguments are invalid.
At times it appears that you’re arguing with yourself.
“…I can easily see a political legend, in the making, right before our very eyes.”
Buwahahahahahahaha!
I can see delusional larry being fitted for a straight jacket. Stop sucking nitrous, Dr.
(BTW, that was taunting since you are unclear on what that entails.)
The sad truth is that larry will blame everyone but obama if the “reform” turns out exactly like we said it would. Larry, you’re no longer a moonbat. More like a Plutobat. You are out there.
@Aye:
Quoting me:
You said:
I explained that health care in general is plagued with waste, fraud, graft, and corruption, but this is entirely on the provider side, and pertains just as much to privately administered health care insurance as to federally administered health care insurance.
Now you come back with:
To which I reply: What on earth are you talking about? I’m not “playing both sides of the fence.” The fraud and graft and corruption parts of it are actually trivial (in comparison to the entire health care portion of the economy). Almost a rounding error. But, however big this is, it applies equally or more so to the private sector funded side.
Where the savings is to be had is in the “waste” side of it. That’s the only thing which can control costs, to a meaningful extent.
By the way, Malpractice tort reform in Texas did nothing to reduce health care expenditures; it only fattened the wallets of providers.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
This first step is on a path to a French system, the basic structure is this:
1. Private physicians, not employed by the government (as they are in Britain).
2. Private hospitals
3. “Public option” health insurance, which provides for a baseline level of care, for everyone. Although only a small part of the initial plan, I completely agree that this would grow to be the plan of choice for the majority of Americans, as it is in France.
4. Ready availability of private insurance, for anyone who wanted a concierge level of service, or was worried about “rationing,” etc. The Canadian system doesn’t allow this. France does and Obamacare will.
This is exactly what is being proposed by Obamacare (generically defined). Or, rather, that’s the way it’s obviously headed.
The French are probably leading the world right now, in cancer care, by the way. They have more cancer mortality, but that’s because they drink like fishes and alcohol is a huge contributing factor to cancer. They also have more deaths from cirrhosis, but that’s not because their health care for cirrhotics is inferior. Quite the contrary. Their death rate from heart disease is a small fraction of that in the USA, but this is not so much that they are so much better at treating it (though I believe that they are better at treating it), it’s because they have much less heart disease, because of lifestyle differences.
Malpractice tort reform is doing nothing to reduce health care costs in Texas. It’s simply fattening providers’ wallets.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Many of these places have had habitual unemployment 10% or worse and economies that are stagnent. Baby boomers and debt are the 900 pound guerilla no one wants to talk about.
Ahhh France…land of high protectionism and 35 hour work weeks. Highly bureaucratic, highly taxed and having problems with its Arab immigrant population where slum intafadas are the newest sport.
UK? Once you’re old or sick, time for the death chute. No thanks. Got AMD? Tough luck boyo….have to lose sight in one eye before they can treat you.
No thanks….we got enough socialism as it is (socsec, medicare, medicade, prescription drugs). I think it’s more than just a small band of vocal opponents.
People are waking up to the BS (those who pay taxes). The debt will be coming back to bite us. Medicare and Medicade are BROKE and SocSec is going BUST. Sorry, but the American people are gonna freek when it comes time to pay the piper. I don’t think the US public will just bend over like the EUROS. Our historical path, culturally, is different from them.
When everyone was young, and you had a high proportion of taxpayers to recipiants, things may of been good (a long honeymoon), but now the demographics and economics are crashing. I’d rather be sick in the US than in the UK.
Interesting concept, Larry. This is like you and another baker eyeing a cake baking in the oven. He sees a wedding layer cake with white frosting, decorated with roses. You see a cake with fruit compote, decorated with whipped cream. THe cake’s not even out of the oven yet…
But both your visions started as cake layers, still in the oven. uh huh
So do we believe you who insists this is the the “first step” to a French system? Or do we believe Obama, in his own words in 2003?
Oh… that was then, you might say. How about yesterday? Think his quest for single payer has diminished?
As yes… a means to an end. The same “step” tactic as confirmed by his political significant other, Rahm’bo, when asked if Obama backpeddled on single payer.
How about the rest who are in power? Do they share your vision for a fruit compote, or a wedding cake? (H/T to Skye for her Aug 23rd post)
ooops… lots of wedding cake visions in there.
Then you come in pro-French, anti-Canadian. Odd… Canada started off just like this… steps… And in fact, there is about 30% of the Canadian health sector paid for by that private sector you say doesn’t exist, and about 65% of all Canadians have some sort of supplementary private insurance. In fact, the Canadian Health Act of 1984 does not bar or prohibit private insurance. It merely makes it economically unattractive, and throws in financial disincentives. Hummm… does that sound familiar, or what?
However, as Obama and all economists… and you, yourself… admit, the bulk of the nation will go over to the public option. Tommy Douglas wanted single payer/universal health care when he passed the Saskatchewan Hospitalization Act in that province back in 1946. Ooops…. the province was too poor for it to happen. But in Alberta, they passed a similar proposal that ended up as the coverage for 90% of the provincial residents. Guess the private sector couldn’t compete, eh?
Canada, France… neither are solvent, nor sustainable. And breaking the bank to achieve what has historically failed in every avenue is no “cure”.
Obama says his $500 bil Medicare cuts are only supposed to be eliminating “waste” and “fraud”. You say there is no waste or fraud…. ala illegal billing, non existent medical equipment, etc. Okay… Even the left fringe MSNBC ran a two part article about Medicare fraud.
Now how do you suggest they eliminate fraud, Larry? Billing still will happen, and for every crook they catch, another crops up. Eliminating “fraud” is like saying confiscate all guns and you’ll eliminate crime. Absurd. By heavens, it can be the new “war on poverty” or “war on drugs”… another federal behemoth lloser.
As a matter of fact, Jack A. Meyer,
President of the Economic and Social Research Institute did a study about the effectiveness of that Medicare fraud we’ve been fighting since it’s inception (like this is a new Obama idea??). Read the report about it’s rising effectiveness, but note the bottom line return…
Let’s see… Obama wants to cut Medicare costs by $500 bil. So to do that, we spend $333.3 bil somewhere else that gets added to the national debt, not to mention keeps those trial lawyers employed. So where are we going to get that $333.3 bil to save the $500 bil? And doesn’t that mean we really only saved $166.6 bil in the difference, and we’ll really have to spend a trillion just to see the $500 bil savings in fraud?
Does not compute…. more fuzzy math. But I’m sure they’ll spin it as a savings, without pointing out the increases elsewhere. Because lies are politics… politics are lies.
INRE Texas and malpractice… you do so like to dismiss the French, who have no malpractice laws. Certainly keeps their costs lower, tho many would like to argue this limits those that are wronged by government run medical care. I might want to point out that the only malpractice limitations will be on the public option. You surely don’t think Congress and Obama are going to allow the government insured individual to sue the feds, do you? So it will tort reform for them, none for the private insurers. And when they are gone, all tort laws will disappear to protect the government.
Also, you ignore the success of that malpractice reform. Sally Pipes, president and CEO of the Pacific Research Institute, has a few more stats for you to consider. And that is Texas is having some of the faster growing physician population in the nation (more competition) because malpractice premiums have gone down as much as 35%.
Isn’t the goal to reduce the costs for providers? Dropping their E&O by 35% is one healthy start.
In a bizarre tangent, a study by Tradewatch in 2003, the same year the malpractice reform was passed, noted that most of the malpractice suits were by repeat offender doctors, and caused by “…the unreliable quality of medical care being delivered by a relatively small proportion of doctors – a problem that health-care providers have not adequately addressed.”
Well lookie there, Larry… by doing malpractice reform, making private practice more feasible in Texas, they’ve upped the amount of physicians, and improved the options for quality care. I guess that relatively small proportion of doctors was improved by the very legislation Tradewatch was arguing against.
But why didn’t it drop the end user premiums? A few reasons.
One being that malpractice is only about 5% of the rising costs. Even tho there is actually a decline in the amount of claims filed in both states with malpractice reform, as well as states with none, the amount of dollars awarded is going up exponentially. And as if that isn’t enough, the defense costs have double the award amounts for both hospitals and physicials. Fighting these is, again, more a benefit for the trial lawyers… not the providers, nor the petitioners.
Therefore malpractice reform – by itself – does little to punch a hole in the rest of the rising costs to the insurers and end consumers. But it goes a long mile in reducing the costs of a provider… and as part of a more complete package, it becomes cumulative.
People may as well start getting used to not being able to sue… because O’healthcare will not be providing that option either.
Mata, we are arguing semantics. What does “single payer” really mean? Does it really mean outlawing private insurance? There is ZERO possibility of that ever happening in this country. The only country in the Western world with true single payer is Canada. All of the Western European countries have private insurance, for those who want it. Australia, too. I doubt seriously that Obama in 2003 really knew all that much about health care. What’s important is 2009.
The business about France going bankrupt. You are doing the same thing as Aye. You are failing to realize that the true cost of health care is (1) taxes + (2) insurance premiums + (3) out of pocket costs. The French pay 1/3 less than we do, for a much better product. Every Western country has problems with rising health care costs; the problems in the USA are greater than anywhere else, because we have one of the worst systems. Less bang for more bucks.
Malpractice reform: I’m in favor, and Obama is being strongly nudged in that direction, but it is true that the only thing malpractice reform in Texas has accomplished is to put more money in the hands of providers. There is no evidence that any saving has been passed on to the people who pay for health care. Malpractice reform is worth doing, but it won’t do anything substantial for health care costs. The economic benefits of such reform have been way overstated by the GOP.
I wrote elsewhere that “fraud” is a rounding error in the health care economy. And it’s as bad in the private sector as in the public sector. The only real savings to be had is in reducing unnecessary services. There is also, to my knowledge, no evidence that malpractice reform in Texas has reduced utilization of “defensive medicine” procedures, by the way. ANY malpractice suit is an enormous problem for any physician. Whether or not there is a cap on “pain and suffering” awards.
But I really did like your cake analogy. Not at all half-baked.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
“half baked”… LOL Good one, Larry.
As I pointed out above, Larry, private insurers are not prohibited by law. They are *discouraged* by law and financial disincentives. I also pointed out that over half of the Canadians have a private supplemental insurance.
By your own “single payer” description, there go us in the US.
Regardless of whether France and Canada “pay less” for a “better product”, their health costs are also nearing national bankruptcy as well. And the only way they will cure that is to “pay more”, and “cut coverage and benefits”. Very simple, really.
The only way to cure the health care crisis in both public and private systems is to “pay more” and “cut coverage.”
Why is Medicare (and France) going bankrupt, while Blue Cross isn’t going bankrupt? Because of private sector efficiency?
Not exactly. Blue Cross raises its insurance premiums by 30% per year. Medicare can’t get away with raising Medicare taxes 30% per year. Blue Cross makes its subscribers pay more — pay much more. Government can’t do this.
Blue Cross rations care much more than Medicare does. Blue Cross raises premiums 30% per year. Medicare doesn’t. You don’t want any “rationing?” Easy, pay more insurance premiums and pay more taxes. Don’t want your premiums or taxes to go up? Easy, start rationing.
But, whether Medicare or France, public insurance works better than private insurance.
Not happy with “free” public insurance? Just buy supplemental private insurance. It’s what they do in France and the rest of Europe. It’s what we’ll also do in the USA.
Mike Huckabee had the best health care plan, by the way.
1. Don’t be overweight.
2. Exercise
3. Don’t smoke
4. Improve the quality of your diet.
Now THAT would really reduce the cost of health care.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
I have relatives in Canada and the UK and can give an earfull about the “public option”
One of my uncles had to go Stateside for an operation because of constant delays and lack of service. He’s 75 and needed his right knee replaced and got fed up with the pill mantra. He offered to pay out of pocket and was told “NO”. He ended up going to Detroit. One of his friends also had to go to Detroit as well for an angioplasty after numerous delays (was told his blockage WASN’T THAT SERIOUS and could wait).
My Grandmother’s neighbor in Vancouver had cataracts and needed a simple operation (in the US, such a proceedure takes about 20-30 minutes for each eye and is an outpatient proceedure). The gentleman got fed up after waiting eight months and went to Seattle for the proceedure. In Canada, if you do get the operation, you will only be offered the single vision implants and won’t have the option of buying the improved versions.
My Aunt in the UK has AMD and was told that a drug is available for treatment. However, it won’t be offered until vision is lost in one eye. By that time, it might be too late for the other eye as well.
Want cutting edge medical research for new drugs and treatments? Like stem cell research? Forget it. Costs for R & D is too high and costs in a gov’t system will become the bottom line. There’s only so much in the budget to spend.
Think it will be equal for all? ARE YOU KIDDING ME!!! Those with money, power and connections will find themselves either exempt, bumped up on the list, go overseas or simply opt out for private clinics (just like in Canada and the UK). It will be the same as before gov’t involvement but only this time with massive taxes and gov’t regulations.
I don’t care for a public option, public option lite or the “trigger option” for it will only lead, in time, to a single-payer and government monopoly. The current bill in the House basically “grandfathers/kills” private insurance and heards people into a gov’t system. The Senate version ushers a ton of new taxes and regulations. Sometimes I wonder if it’s really about healthcare or simply a power grab. One started, it will become just another voting block and another source of campaign contributions.
There will ALWAYS be waste, fraud, corruption and abuse in government run programs. It has happened in probably every government program that was ever instituted. Any politician who claims that they will get rid of it all is lying. A government run health-care system will bring with it it’s own waste and abuse of the system. Obama is playing a con game here and he thinks we are the suckers.
There is nothing in any health reform bill under consideration which has any resemblance at all to the systems of Canada (single payer monopoly) or Britain (doctors work for government; hospitals owned by government). The much more valid comparisons are France, Germany, Sweden, Norway, Australia.
Compare Medicare with Blue Cross (or Aetna or United Health Care) and, by any criterion you care to choose, Medicare wins. The usual rules of economics don’t apply to health care, anymore than they’d apply were police or military services (which also protect the public) completely privatized. Or university-level education, for that matter, as Obama pointed out in his speech.
– Larry W/HB
This form of conformist propaganda is silly… It is repeated as often as possible that “this legislation will pass”. The intention is to build a herd mentality and discourage the opposition, despite the reality that the likelihood of the bill’s passing is very small.
“So hop on the bandwagon and don’t be a loser.”
Individuality is going to suffer as the Democratic Party, ACORN, SEIU, MoveOn and the whole leftwing conformity machine continues to propagandize so blatantly.
Dissent could be crushed with the constant application of propaganda (the media), indoctrination (the education system), legal persecution (activist lawyers/judges), nepotistic government legislation, etc… Just look at what happened to Palin.
However, I think Middle America is too big to be disenfranchised for much longer. Even with liberals choking the reigns of elitist power.
This Administration will not make it to the end of its term at this rate…