WATCH: Conservative Media Paranoia Over Health Care Reform
June 17, 2009 10:39 am ET by Brian Frederick & Karl Frisch
A while back I wrote about healthcare reform noting:
No issue incurs the wrath of these modern-day Red hunters more than health-care reform. For more than 75 years, conservatives have smeared progressive attempts to reform our faltering health-care system as "socialized medicine."
[...]
Since the 1930s, conservatives have assailed at least 16 different progressive health-care reform initiatives as "socialized medicine" or as a step that would inevitably lead in that direction.
What exactly has constituted "socialized medicine" to conservatives over the past seven-plus decades?
How about Franklin Roosevelt's consideration of government health insurance when crafting the 1935 bill that created Social Security, or Lyndon Johnson's 1965 amendment to the Social Security Act establishing Medicare? Both raised the ire of conservatives, who were quick to run with the "socialized medicine" smear.
In fact, back in 1964, Ronald Reagan, then stumping for GOP presidential candidate Barry Goldwater, said of Medicare, "Will you resist the temptation to get a government handout for your community? Realize that the doctor's fight against socialized medicine is your fight. We can't socialize the doctors without socializing the patients."
Like Roosevelt and Johnson decades before him, Bill Clinton's health-care initiative in 1993 and 1994 and his work to create the State Children's Health Insurance Program in 1997 were attacked time and again as "socialized medicine."
Pick a progressive president. Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Clinton, and now Obama -- they've all faced the stale "socialized medicine" routine from the right.
So, what's the climate been like for President Obama?
Previously:
Media Matters: The right-wing media's election analysis just ain't that good
The Friday Rush: For conservatives, $400 million buys defeat at the ballot box
The myth of Fox News' ratings spike
The Constitution says it clearly that anything not granted as a power to the Federal Government in the Constitution is a default State power. For the Federal Government to try to exercise a power like health care reform is unconstitutional and illegal.
So that means if a person doesn't cross State lines for their care then it doesn't involve the Feds.
The FBI deals with things on involving Federal property and interstate issues. They also investigate cases involving American overseas. When they work on local cases it is because they have been asked to participate.
Do we really want to have a socialized military?
When you listen to Limbaugh it's clear he fancies himself as a 21st Century Samuel Smiles, always stressing personal achievement and how it's being taken away from us by Obama and the Dems.
It's a wierd combination of right wing ideology and self-help blather, like a Billy Sunday service. Classic, really-- I wonder if they think this will work nowadays. It didn't in the 30s.
There is nothing saying that this would be "quality health care" either. The Government has yet to prove it can run a health care system of any quality efficiently. In fact, they have proved the opposite. Medicare is just the same thing Obama wants to do only on a smaller scale and it is failing. If they can't get it right with a relatively small part of the population whats make them think they can get it right for 300 million+ people? And don't say that Obama's plan is just for the uninsured. As soon as employers and states see that if they do not offer health insurance the Feds will they will drop there benefits in a flash.
Does Medicare provide sub-standard care in your opinion?
Or is the govt-funded health care provided to Congress sub-standard as well?
Or are you just automatically conditioned to believe that anything sponsored by the US govt is automatically bad like every other Republican believes?
Medicare is inefficient and going bankrupt. The level of their is not the question. They cannot function properly and are bleeding money.
I believe in the Constitution. The Constitution says this is a State power to control and exercise within the power of their own Constitution. This is not a Federal authority.
And your state over federal power whine was tested during 1861-1865, I believe the answer is that claim lost.
http://www.karlloren.com/healthinsurance/p41.htm
People are lazy and don;t want to use the tools provided for them in the free market. Using government is easy.
Y'all had your chance and did nothing, you sitting here and arguing about reform when you've been sitting on the sidelines for 14 years is laughable at best. Like a friend once said, "When uncertain, when in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout." That sums up what you are now doing after 14 years of inactivity.
But you said nothing about our own consumer power to force prices to come down. We do not need Government to get involved when we can do it ourselves.
The fact that the trust fund needs some attention says nothing about the program itself, just like the Social Secirty trust fund issues don't say anything at all about the viability or necessity or functionality of Social Security. Too bad you are apparently so confused that you think that the trust fund for Medicare is related in the least to its inefficiency. It's not. It's a terrifically efficient means of providing health care to people in need with very low overhead and no profit motive.
What is apparent to us is that you are listening to the right wing talking points and not learning anything from any other source. If you were truly, broadly educated you'd know that the right wing talking points you've been fed on Medicare don't stand up to the most cursory exam.
How can you say that the the trust fund issues have nothing to do with the programs viability? That is what funds the programs. Without them the programs do not exist.
I did not say that the trust fund issue is what makes Medicare inefficient. I said the fact that it pays out way more in benefits than it gets in revenue to pay those benefits.
"Talking points" is a fallacious argument. You have no way of knowing where I get my information from or how well educated I am. Your just being insulting.
"Accounting for the cost of U.S. health care: A new look at why Americans spend more" The entire report can be downloaded at the link (free registration is required). Other aspects of the study are discussed here.
If he goes into an Oxy fit, he's covered 100%.
I don't think so my friend.
But as so many on the right, because you always try to make it about the messenger instead of the message, about the person instead of their behavior, you think that it's about not liking Limbaugh personally.
It's about his behavior, stupid. It's about his non-constructive criticism. It's about his unfair and untrue attacks on those on the left and liberal philosophy.
Why are you such a advocate for lying?
Raising taxes on the "working guys" is not even anywhere near the table. In order to have a decent dialogue, you have to at least start with basic facts.
I know, it's hard for you to get them when you're listening to El Fathead.
Second, we working guys will pay the taxes. Who is Congress? Rich people are in Congress. They will try to cover the taxes up saying they are only taxing things that promote unhealthy living. Like soda, cigarettes, alcohol, fast food, etc. (notice how they won't outlaw any of it.) We as the working class are the ones who smoke, drink alcohol and soda, and eat fast food more than the wealthy. So you may not pay more on tax day, but you will everyday of your life just doing the things you normally do.
Work some more on your imitation working man schtick. Its not very realistic.
Plenty of wingnuts say their this and that. Since most are also Straussian (noble) liars, credibility lacks in most wingnut identity statements.
But if you guys choose to believe something else their is nothing I can do change your mind.
The working man is not going to see his taxes raised, in the long term, to pay for universal health insurance. In the long term, we will all save by having universal health coverage. We're paying for the medical care of those not covered by health insurance right now with local and state sales taxes that support clinics and hospitals and we're paying with insurance premiums that subsidize their care.
We are already paying more than we need to be because of the shortsightness of those who opposed universal health care in the 1990's under Clinton.
So, if you want to complain about how much it costs you today, complain to the people that delayed this change 15 years! They are the real villains here.
But the Feds have already expressed desires to raise taxes on things they consider to support un-healthy lifestyles. This includes soda, alcohol, cigarettes, fast food, junk food, etc. These taxes will be to offset the cost of the health effects they think will be caused by using or consuming these products. The "working man" is who buys more of that stuff than any other class in America. So while you may be saved a high tax bill on April 15th you will see increased cost for the things you buy everyday.
It's not like he had a huge struggle to accomplish those things.
Making in radio is hard work. And Rush Limbaugh would not be successful if his message didn't resonate with millions of people.
We'll pay less in the long run with everyone covered.
Yet you do not explain how the free market health care system is any better.
We have for-profit health care providers with 30%+ administrative costs, skyrocketing costs year over year and 50M uninsured Americans.
How in the world can you defend that?
Second, the free market is better because it encourages competition. When you have competition you have better services and better overall care.
First, the 50 million have health care access. If they go to an Emergency Room they have to be treated.
Second, I was just pointing that those are numbers are great when you think of how many people we have in this country. I didn't say they were perfect or that the 50 million should die.
Third, I say all of this as a member of the 50 million. I have not insurance in over a year. But have still been able to get medical care at a severely reduced cost or free thanks to the many charity organizations all over the United States who offer this.
I vote for both uneducated and lying.
There are more than a 1/2 billion of us? No sale.
Please google and learn. It's does a brain good.
Here's a factoid for ya. 20,000 people DIE every year from a lack of available/affordable health care. If you're against universal health care, you're pro-death.
People do not die because of lack of health care. They die because of disease or injury. People have access to health care through the ER and charitable organizations that offer it at low cost or free. Plus every state in the union just about has a State insurance program for those who cannot afford it.
You're right, the US population is 300 million, so 50 million is more like 17% of the population. So contrary to your claim the free market didn't insure 99% of the country.
When a house is on fire, somehow it gets put out. And letters? I can put one in a blue box on the street corner and 2 days later, by golly, it gets to Grandma's house in Florida.
The current system is INEFFICIENT. 30% of each dollar goes to overhead vs. 3% for medicare/medicaid.
Your prefer profits over health. Disgusting.
The Post Office is bankrupt as well. They are laying off carriers, asking Congress to let them switch to a 5 day delivery week, and raising postage rates all in an attempt to put a band aid on a gaping inefficiencies.
Just because firefighters do their job does not mean they are being run efficiently.
Plus health care is a State issue. Since it is not written into the Constitution as a power for the Federal Government it reverts to State control. If Congress passes this legislation it will be one more spit in the face of the founding principles of this nation.
I still get health care from charity organizations. I have a $4 prescription for blood pressure medication after a free visit to the doctor at a local free clinic.
There are 50 MILLION uninsured Americans. Putting them all into the system will drive down health care costs.
If you don't like the public option, DON'T USE IT!
It doesn't matter what state you live in, you can still use your favorite health care insurance company just as you do today.
I will restate 50 million is not eve 1% of our population. So that means over 99% of us in the USA are insured. Those are great numbers.
You won't have the option not to use the public option. Once the government starts handing out health care like it was t-shirts at a baseball game there will eventually be no other option.
It may be an option, but my pont is it would be an illegal option.
Now, if the GOP congress under GW Bush were drafting the legislation, then I could understand your concern.
"While people without health insurance often delay or forgo care, in 2008, the uninsured received $116 billion worth of care from hospitals, doctors, and other providers. Those costs were covered in the following ways:
•The uninsured paid for, on average, more than one-third (37 percent) of the total costs of the care they received out of their own pockets.
•Third-party sources, such as government programs and charities, paid for another 26 percent of that care.
•The remaining amount, approximately $42.7 billion in 2008, was unpaid and constituted uncompensated care.
To make up for this uncompensated care, the costs were shifted to insurers in the form of higher charges for health services. These higher charges are then passed on to families and businesses as higher premiums. The impact of this hidden health tax on annual premiums for families and individuals in 2008 was as follows:
•For family health care coverage, the hidden health tax was $1,017.
•For health coverage provided to single individuals, the hidden health tax was $368. "
If you read the full report you will see that the estimates are fair and reasonable considering all factors that can be known. What the report cannot really take into account is th savings in administrative costs that would result from reducing over 1200 insurers offering multiple plans (with attendant nightmares for physicians and other providers) to one or even a few. Most reasonable estimates predict very significant savings from that alone. Please feel free to submit any studies done by impartial third parties that show these figures are wrong in any significant way.
Covering more people than necessary and spending more money than we are currently spending to cover the uninsured medical care makes no sense.
Why?
Millions of workers don’t have the opportunity to get health coverage. A third of firms in the U.S. did not offer coverage in 2007.
Nearly two-fifths (38 percent) of all workers are employed in smaller businesses, where less than two-thirds of firms now offer health benefits to their employees. It is estimated that 266,000 companies dropped their health coverage between 2000-2005 and 90 percent of those firms have less than 25 employees.
Rapidly rising health insurance premiums are the main reason cited by all small firms for not offering coverage. Health insurance premiums are rising at extraordinary rates. The average annual increase in inflation has been 2.5 percent while health insurance premiums for small firms have escalated an average of 12 percent annually.
Even if employees are offered coverage on the job, they can’t always afford their portion of the premium. Employee spending for health insurance coverage (employee’s share of family coverage) has increased 120 percent between 2000 and 2006.
Losing a job, or quitting voluntarily, can mean losing affordable coverage – not only for the worker but also for their entire family. Only seven (7) percent of the unemployed can afford to pay for COBRA health insurance – the continuation of group coverage offered by their former employers. Premiums for this coverage average almost $700 a month for family coverage and $250 for individual coverage, a very high price given the average $1,100 monthly unemployment check.
Coverage is unstable during life’s transitions. A person’s link to employer-sponsored coverage can also be cut by a change from full-time to part-time work, or self-employment, retirement or divorce.
Page 7 of this PDf documents that profits of the ten largest publicly traded health insurance companies rose by 428% between 2000 and 2007. Furthermore publicly funded care is also invariably produces superior outcomes. A study published in 2002 which compared mortality rates for 26000 hospitals and 38 million patients found that for-profit hospitals had higher mortality rates that not for profit hospitals. A http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/abstract/170/12/1817study completed two years later demonstrated conclusively that not for profit hospitals also deliver this superior care for a lower price. Another study demonstrates superior outcomes for patients treated in Canadian hospitals (versus the US) where healthcare is primarily publicly financed.
The evidence is overwhelming that a public option is superior in every way to what we have now. But you have to make a little effort to understand the data. For the above reasons there is no question that the gap can be closed more economically, more efficiently, and with superior outcomes than it would be if left to private insurers. I have produced an abundance of evidence in support of my argument. You have produced none. If you want to seriously argue that private insurers can close this gap you'll have to come up with a lot more than you have. In fact the gap may well exist because we have accepted the financing of healthcare for profit by megacorporations whose main preoccupation is with the generation of profit. Lets put the money into delivering care and compensating those who do the work at a reasonable rate. The evidence is that putting profit before care produces higher mortality rates, inferior outcomes, higher numbers of uninsured, and much higher costs. Do you have evidenceto the contrary? I doubt it.
I am finished with this thread--it is already dead. Please join the rest of us on a live thread a try your arguments there.
I know you're not insane, but you're starting to sound a little unhinged.
Medicare is not "bankrupt." I guess you've been listening to the cons again. The only thing that's bankrupt is the thousands of people who went bankrupt after a big bill from their insurance companies. And most of these people HAD insurance.
Sounds broke to me. Plus it is inefficient and lacking in service.
I take it you've never tried to create a small business before. It makes perfect sense why republicans give little more than lip service to small businesses. They don't have the clout to drive down provider prices so they most always operate By your definition, they are inefficient, and by your definition, it's their fault and not their suppliers. No wonder small businesses are failing at an alarming rate...
Small businesses have always failed at an alarming rate. Starting a business is a crap shoot. People are quick to point out high cost for health care coverage (that employers are not required to provide) but ignore the myriad of unnecessary taxes and fees that government lays on small businesses.
Gov't sponsored simply does NOT automatically = worse than private sector.
Again, either you are being dishonest or you are too uneducated to be trying to school us on this topic.
Just like with with Social Security, there is a trust fund, and just like with Social Security, in order to continue paying out forever, the trust fund needs a small percentage increase in money coming in to compensate for the money going out.
Just because George Bush didn't take care of that problem, and instead tried to foist Social Security privatization on us to solve that further-out Soc Sec trust fund shortfall, somehow that makes the system inefficient?
Either you know what you are saying, and you know that it's a lie, or you don't know what you are talking about. Or both.
The rest of your statement is just partisan poppycock that adds nothing to discussion.
seems a bit ironic considering it is their affection for the Ponzi-scheme style Capitalism that is laying the foundations for Socialism.
Does anyone in this discussion have a family member in a nursing home permanently requiring “daily skilled nursing care” as of today. And how long has that family member been there?
Let’s start with the age on day of admission. How much are you paying per day for that person out-of-pocket “private pay”. How much is Medicaid paying, if any?
You don’t have to answer because this may be a private matter for you. But maybe we could discuss a real situation instead of personalities and how good looking someone is.
I’ll tell you my story if you’ll tell me yours. This could require more than 3 minutes of your time. Go…