On MSNBC, Media Matters' Frisch explains how the "right-wing noise machine" ran with the GOP's health care chart
July 16, 2009 4:04 pm ET
From the July 16th edition of MSNBC Live:
Expand All
Expand 1st Level
Collapse All
Media Matters: On health care reform, the Fox News noise machine is cranked to 11
The media myth of Obama's "falling poll numbers"
How to annoy Glenn Beck in five minutes or less
SCREW HIM! AND SCREW THESE PUNDITS! HOW DARE THEY THINK FOR ME!?
As Frisch ( so reasonably) says, even if it was accurate, so what?
Would most people be afraid to drive if shown a schematic of their car? What sort of idiots does this stuff appeal to?
Mature.
But, I guess the DuPont Circle crowd is used to not hearing different opinions, other that the Fabuluth ones.
"so what" was in response to the idiotic chart. Even if it was an accurate depiction of the proposed health care system, it would have nothing to do with the complexity as it affects the consumer. It's a primitive piece of propaganda, aimed at the most easily confused Americans.
Try to read more carefully before making an azz of yourself.
BTW,is "fabuluth" supposed to be "fabulous" with a lisp? Mature.
ps, eddiebear, thanks for inadvertently answering my question. haha, Zing!!!! LOL
For all the money that will be wasted on socialized medicine, you could give each citizen or legal resident @$6500.00 to shop for coverage on their own. Allow insurance companies to compete for those dollars, I pay about $10,000 for my family, individuals could bank the extra and decide the kind of protection they needed. But individual freedom, even with a government voucher provided, is anti-thetical to the objectives of this administration.
1) There is no Democrat party in America... there is however a Democratic party.
2) Perhaps if you opened your ears you might actual notice that plenty of information is being given by the Democratic party... but you have to be willing to open your ears and eyes to hear/see it.
By suggesting such a simplistic answer, you completely ignore that a big part of the problem is HOW THE INSURANCE COMPANIES OPERATE.
Try to get educated a little on HOW THE INSURANCE COMPANIES OPERATE.
In 1990, .95 cents of every premium dollar was spent on CLAIMS. Now, .80 cents of every premium dollar is spent on claims. WALL STREET INSISTS.
Try to get educated a little on HOW THE INSURANCE COMPANIES OPERATE.
The will have the incentive to balance all with portabilty and choice in the consumer's hands. The government has no incentive to make consumers happy, providers too, or to lower costs except by rationing care and limiting access.
And putting thousands more of people out of work? No big deal. Obama wants more unemployment so that they can then run to Big Brother for help.
Complete and utter disregard for the problems with insurance companies.
What if a patient is unhappy with their insurance BECAUSE THEIR INSURANCE IS DENYING BENEFIT FOR A LIFE-SAVING MEDICAL PROCEDURE??? The insurance company keeps the money and the policy holder DIES, because no one else will insure him because of his condition.
PLEASE TELL US, WHAT GOOD IS THE FREE MARKET TO A POLICY HOLDER IN THIS SITUATION???
Your assumption that the government won't deny a life saving procedure is unrealistic. They will cut people off and without recourse. Remember Senator Daschle, Obama's first nominee for HHS wrote in a book that older folks will need to accept their fate and not have life-extending procedures because of the cost-benefit ratio. That kind of rationing is what government health care will get you.
An HSA is supposed to be some kind of lifeline? Do have any freakin' idea how much cancer treatment costs???
So to rephrase, what good is "portability" and the ability to "switch companies" to a policy holder whose insurer has denied them coverage?
There is enough money around for people to get access to care, pay physicans and hospitals and have the insurance companies to make a profit to continue in business.
Don't be naive. K Street would NEVER allow that to happen and you know it.
And if K street cannot stop it because of the pressure put on the legislature, is it then your contention that an idea like this has merit?
I don't think socialized medicine will pay for grandma's hip replacement just because you ask. There you are dealing with a bureaucrat who will look at cost benefit formularies and choose when, if ever, the work will be done. In the meantime, grammie, here's a cane.
Imagine the DMV running your health care......
Several years ago an aunt and uncle of mine were travelling in England. They were US citizens. They were involved in a car accident. My uncle was killed instantly. My aunt and the driver, a Brit, survived the accident.
My aunt was sent to a private hospital because why?, she had private insurance that allowed for that care. The driver died shortly thereafter but was sent to the public hospital and was not afforded the same care as my aunt. There was and maybe still is, a two tiered system in England.
I don't know of the quality of care provided at the public hospital but my cousin was told that the measures taken to save my aunt would not have been taken in the public system.....because it was too expensive and the technology unavailable to those dependent upon government care.
I hope neither of us would face those kind of events again or closer to home, but I know that now that much more is available than would be if left to the government, where we had no recourse.
A study in 2009 showed that 60% of all bankruptcy claims were due to medical debt... and of those filing bankruptcy, 75% of those people had insurance.
What does it say about our health care system that a debilitating illness will force you into bankruptcy even with insurance.
If a "government bureaucrat" is standing between you and the care you need, you have a constitutional right to protest your government. You can contact your congressman. You can make a lot of noise, rally people to your cause, and raise public pressure, all within your rights, to get that "government bureaucrat" thrown out on his behind and replaced. And if that doesn't work, you can get the elected officials who oversee that bureaucrat thrown out of office by way of the ballot box in favor of someone who will get the job done.
Can you do that with health care insurance CEO's??? Hell no. Try anything similar and they'll press charges for harassment! Try to sue them, and they'll hire the most venomous litigators in the business to wear you down. They are accountable to no one except the share holders who pay them millions of dollars in return for huge profits on the backs of the sick and injured.
I will be more inclined to agree to socialized medicine when congress forces themselves into the system rather have a tiered system of care.
Plenty of CEO's have been shown the door because they failed to deliver on product with profit. It would be the same here.
Name one.
http://www.reuters.com/article/hotStocksNews/idUSTRE4AH0KA20081118
There are a large number of these.
As far as the insurance companies, my quick search showed problems with reguations as the cause for their demise, not copetition. I still say that by giving individuals more options, people will become educated as to the cost of insurance, understand what they need, they and their money will flow to the companies that serve them well and be able to stay in business and be there for them in the long run.
Bankruptcies related to health care are tragic for sure, but what would socialize health care do? It's not going to give away care that otherwise resulted in bankruptcy, they would just say no to the care.
Evidently, these folks understood the value of someone's life to be willing to put their financial footing on hold. Let's hope their efforts bore fruit in either curing or extending the life of the one they loved so dearly.
Two comments, one, I don't believe that a government solution would have just gone ahead and provided the necessary care. There are many stories of people in other countries dying while waiting for procedures or not being offered the treatment at all. These folks did have the legal option, even with high costs, to do all they felt necessary for their loved one.
Secondly, bankruptcy law is designed for people to keep the necessities for comfort. It happens to individuals and companies as provides a way out of debt while keeping the basics in place. It's difficult but people and companies do rise from the ashes having worked out reduced or extended financial obligations.
I can't imagine the pain in making such a choice to save a life, but socialized medicine would more than likely have a 'cost-saving' outcome through denial or rationing.
Each company would offer something for catastrophic care, choices with co-pays, etc. They would have to work with Dr.'s, hospitals, pharmacies to make a product that people want to buy and "yes" allows them to make a profit.
Government has no incentive to lower costs through choice, just by lowering payments to physicians or rationing out care. Insurance companies can't just deny services or they loose clients or pay too cheaply because no physician will enter their system. It happens a lot in Medicare. Insurance companies have first an obligation to make a profit, balancing all those aspects of service and delivery.
I have only seen insurance cost triple in the last 10 years, for my employer and myself.
This myth that insurance companies keep costs down is completely without merit.
Insurance companies have a 1-2 punch in making money, raise premiums and deny coverage.
"Government has no incentive to lower costs through choice.." except that if Public Option is a failure, voters can retaliate against reps who voted it into existence. Who do I vote out if my health insurance company refuses coverage? Given a choice, I'd rather have a govt bureaucrat, who has NO incentive to deny me coverage, between me and my doctor, than a health insurance company rep, whose job may DEPEND on denying me coverage.
"Insurance companies have first an obligation to make a profit..." exactly right. Which is why they should not be running the health care system. The decision to give someone health care should not be based on a formula which includes "how does this help our bottom line?"
I know you don't believe it, but the fact is that Capitalism doesn't work in every instance, all the time. We spend centuries rationing education and providing it only to people who could afford it. The public school system isnt perfect, but no one would replace it with the old "education is for the wealthy" system. Health care is a human right. Someday, even knuckle-draggers like you will get that.
So waiting for grandma's hip replacement depends on the next election cycle?
Your example of education is a great example for this debate. We have a public school system that by most accouts is a failure. Why? No choice. We average about $10,000 per kid and we still are out performed. In DC, the families given the opportunity to succeed with a voucher have done so. And what does the admin do? Cancel it, because it shows how choice could work.
In college, we have voucher choice through loans and our system is the envy of the world, why? because if Acme tech doesn't suit, I go to State U instead with my money too. All universities and colleges work hard to increase retention rates.
As far as insurance, why can Geico and progressive go at it and succeed. They provide products that fit the consumer's needs. They give high risk policies or bare bones what ever the case requires. If individuals were given, again about $6500/person or $24,000/family, a lot of good insurance could be purchased and money saved in HSA's for the time when needs change.
And capitalism, when freedom and liberty allow it to chug along will kick the tail of any state-run centrally controlled government economy.
Not where I live. I'll put the achievement and temperament of my son against any private school kid that's his age any day.
"In DC, the families given the opportunity to succeed with a voucher have done so."
The evaluation found that the OSP improved reading, but not math, achievement overall and for 5 of 10 subgroups of students examined. The group designated as the highest priority by Congress — students applying from "schools in need of improvement" (SINI) — did not experience achievement impacts. Students offered scholarships did not report being more satisfied or feeling safer than those who were not offered scholarships, however the OSP did have a positive impact on parent satisfaction and perceptions of school safety. This same pattern of findings holds when the analysis is conducted to determine the impact of using a scholarship rather than being offered a scholarship.
My kids also go to public schools, unlike those who legislate against school choice.
Obama's kids...Private
Clinton's kid...Private
Gore's girls...Private
Bush girls...Private
The only one who wasn't a hypocrite was Jimmy Carter who had Amy go to a Public DC school.
Those days aren't coming back, Thank God. All your drivel about vouchers ( I teach at a private school which charges $17,000 per year tuition- guess what? A $6500 per year voucher would do NOTHING to help any student who can't already afford to go there attend) for insurance would do nothing to solve the problem- handing everyone several thousand dollars a year to make insurance "portable" will just encourage the companies to RAISE THEIR RATES TO MATCH THE MONEY AVAILABLE. That you don't get that- or are willing to pretend you don't- just demonstrates how obtuse or rock-headed dumb you really are.
I said that on average it's about $10,000 per kid. That's not the point, the point is that when parents are invested in their child's education, their kids do better. I say, get rid of the bureaucratic waste in DC and state level, give the parents the right with 'portable' voucher to choose where there kids go and already you've added a dynamic of parental involvement that didn't exist before. Schools will work harder, especially public schools, to keep students learning, safe and satisfying the needs of the consumer. My guess is that overall you would see parental awareness of what you do, assignments given, conduct in the classroom as a positive in completing your duties.
This thread was originally about health care but I believe the aspects of competiton in both allow for the comparison. If I am responsible for choosing my health care, see the costs, I will make the best judgements because of the costs I will be responsible for. I won't just hop into the car because I have the sniffles because of the copay. Maybe I will take steps to improve my family's state of health through lifestyle changes because it will cost me if we don't. And when I need emergency or life sustaining care, I know that I will have the best possible access because of the investment I've made in research, time, money, just like parents overseeing their child's educational progress.
I work in education and could afford private schooling but choose our local public school. I chose to live where I do because of my experience with this district. Others don't find themselves in circumstances where they could easily move or afford private schooling, like the school where you teach. Imagine if a parent had an option to find alternative opportunities to benefit their children, either public or private. I think those results would be easily demonstrable.
As far as the capitalism of the 1800's, I think we have a more sophisticated population of workers (despite public schooling!) and business owners that would agree we won't go back to that time. When the economy is running, especially like during the last 8 yrs when unemployment was statistically non-existent, employees are able to find work that enables them to live safely and comfortably. They live, because of our health care system, beyond their 40's and above poverty. That's how the engine of capitalism can work when individual choice and liberty are the dominant themes of the society. I fear, that is being lost now because of the changes our government is attempting to make.
"...and business owners than would agree we won't go back to that time." Jesus, it's hardly worth it, but- we won't be going back to that time, but that's got nothing to do with what business wants. GOVERNMENT won't ALLOW businesses to go back to that time. If corporations had their druthers, we'd be right back to no minimum wage and no safety standards.
Seriously- you are either suffering brain damage, or are pathetically ignorant, or both. Turn off right-wing radio and pick up a book (and no, a book "authored" by Bill O'Reilly doesn't count.) And your last two lines HAD to be lifted from some Sean Hannity sign off- good lord, I've heard a better version of garbled "patriotism" from Andrew Wilkow.
I went to public school not 'superior private education' and thanks for fixing my queen's english, too!
What a lame attack, I think that people deserved to be exploited, in your world, exploited by the bourgeois! I have said nothing of the sort, in fact I throughout this thread have made it clear of the competence of people to act freely on their own accord.
Part of that is the ability for folks to choose careers, employers but also, to work for themselves. Entreprenurship is what has driven this country forward economically and the freedoms that affords. Large corporations in ca-hoots (how'd yu like that-dare edgacated word?) with government find it in their best interests to squash competition. Off loading health care, agreeing to regulations only they could afford is not in the individual's interests at all. By keeping options alive, people can move through the work force to find employment that provides financial benefit, safe living standards or make their own way in this world. Again, I feel this is not the goal in how this administration hopes to lead.
And by the way, as a bit of advice, when losing a debate because you have not brought anything forward to discuss, only responding to my proactive thoughts, don't stoop to the bag of rocks dumb stuff. Imagine how disappointed those rich-kid students of your's would be. ;(
As a quick postscript, thanks for your concern regarding any brain injury that I may suffered. While your compassion is appreciated it is unnecessary, both of my synapeses tell me I am mentally equipped to muddle through life. I now hope to convince my spouse of the same.
And that's fine with you. I get it. There's really no point in continuing this argument- you think Freedom means a tiny sliver of the population has all the power and gives orders, while the great majority should be grateful for the scraps that fall from the table. I don't agree.
I understand you, and you understand me.
You went to a private school. Jamelle to a public school. Not only has he SPANKED you in this little debate you are too stupid to even know you had the floor mopped with your supine backside. You arent very bright. You are a troll who calls people derisive nicknames because you are stupid and brainwashed and think its clever when Rush does it. You are pathetic and I pity you
How long does a poor person without healthcare have to wait for a hip replacement? FOREVER. They will NEVER get one.
I, for one, would LOVE to see the democrat plan and have it splained to the country. But, it seems this will attempt to be ramrodded through, just like cap & which was voted upon without the full bill being presented to the house.(plowedcon)
Wingnuts get in lock step!! Well done!! here's your cookie!
What the average person wants to know is, what does the plan mean to me and my health care?!?
I can tell you a story of someone I know who had throat cancer a few years ago... here was the process.
1. Went to see her family doctor... family doctor referred her to a ENT specialist. (wait 2 weeks for Pacificare to approve the referral)
2. Saw ENT specialist took a bioposy and recommended a PET Scan and MRI. Waited 4 weeks for PET Scan and 2 weeks for MRI.
3. Confirmed it as malignant tumor and recommended aggressive radiation and chemotherapy treatment. Referral of Oncologist. (3 week wait on that approval) and Radiolgist (1 week wait)
4.From Diagnosis to treatment was 3 months, most of the time was spent waiting for Pacificare to approve all the referrals, treatments and tests.
Fortunately her cancer is in remission and the extended delays did not adversely affect her treatment....
But, last year Pacificare did inform her that Oncologist was no longer "in network" and they forced her to go to a new doctor for her follow up appointments.... sounds like Pacificare is trying to control our lives!!!
The problem with government care is the fallicy that somehow all care will be approved. It is just the opposite. The case you describe above will be the norm, not the exception.
She pays her premiums 2 months in advance for fear of missing a payment and being dropped...
No private insurer would want to insure a chronically ill person... why would they? There is no way to profit off of hemophiliacs, MS, Parkinson's patients... just because it's portable doesn't force insurance companies to compete? They don't want that business... they can't afford to take on that business.
They would go under if they took on sick clients... they only want healthy clients who pay their premiums. They DENY CARE to make a profit!
When I get older, maybe my HSA account could be tapped to enhance the care that I need. Or, I purchase a nursing home policy to handle those needs.
Of course they don't want the risky business but if they want any business they have to accept all under a basic care contract. If company B wants that business to come their way, maybe they include some alternatives that balance cost and profit.
The idea that no care will be denied if we have socialized medicine is a delusion. Without choice the government will be the sole arbitor of someone's health care. And what will that look like? Much like what Tom Daschle wrote in his book that came to light when he was first nominated to become our 'health czar'. Doctors giving up control over medical choices and the elderly just accepting things as a product of age and forego treatments.
You keep thinking along the lines that you are, and address the problems of corporate denial of coverage and underinsurance, and you might come round to what is being proposed by the Democrats...
Obama Channel. You're hilarious.
Yeah, I'm going to take YOUR posts seriously.
This chart just reminds me that some of us live in the real world and some of us live in "candyland"
Well then again maybe its pretty simple, one huge box is where the money comes in, one very small box where the claims are paid, and of course the second biggist box where the rest of the money goes. Theres no label on this box, because no one really knows where it goes. Although I have a pretty good idea where it goes.