About us Login Get email updates
Quick Clip
Print

Axelrod informs Matthews that the "big bulky English-style" health care bureaucracy he brought up is a "straw man"

July 24, 2009 8:37 am ET

From the July 22 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

Previously:

Matthews: Health insurance co-op "sounds less socialist" than public option

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by hisroyalmattness (July 24, 2009 9:48 am ET)
      3 1
      The conservatives, as usual, are more concern about protecting profits instead of what is best for people. We already have bureaucracy when it comes to healthcare. I much rather have civil servants run the health care than private citizens at for profit companies. I much rather have lobbyist taken out of the making the healthcare laws in this country. Being able to drop people easily when they pay for your service is not fair to the consumer.
      Remember one of the cornerstones of capitalism is maximizing profits. I do not want my healthcare to be decided but what would help the shareholders make the most amount of money. They can drop a person and then it becomes hard for them to get cover for they have a pre-existing condition.
      Lastly, bankruptcies due to medical bills were 62 percent in 2007. Next time someone says our healthcare system is great just bring up how it makes the shareholders rich and bankrupts the rest.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by jcalton (July 24, 2009 10:21 am ET)
        2 1
        /agree

        If you want to save money in the healthcare system, how much would it save (if we went to a full socialist healthcare system) to eliminate money spent on all of the following:
        1) Lobbying (Especially pharmaceuticals & insurance, but also doctors, patients, hospitals, medical equipment, et al)
        2) Advertising (esp. drugs and insurance)
        3) P.R. after getting bad press
        4) Research or studies funded by the company who wants a certain result
        5) Paying corporate executive salaries and bonuses, perks, travel, etc
        6) Paying shareholder dividends
        7) Defending malpractice lawsuits (you can't sue the U.S. without its permission)

        I WISH WE HAD A FULL ENGLISH HEALTHCARE SYSTEM.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by highliter (July 24, 2009 1:21 pm ET)
            2
          FYI the UK has One of the worst cancer survival rates in the civilized world.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by highliter (July 24, 2009 1:13 pm ET)
          2
        I take it you have never had to worked with any of our current Government run health care options. Medicare denies coverage all the time and when they do pay they only pay about 30 cents for every dollar billed causing Doctors to make the cost up elsewhere. The VA system is terrible the waits for care and doctors are very long. Mainly because they can't find Doctors to work for them due to crappy pay. I do not want my healthcare to resemble any of the current government health care systems.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by military_husband (July 24, 2009 1:38 pm ET)
          1  
          I have no problems with the government health care system I am in right now. Your claims of VA system being broken are false. I went to a military hospital just last week with no appointment and waited all of 30 minutes before my son was seen. I could not be happier that I have military benefits and don't know what my family would do without them. The VA system frequently gets the highest marks for efficiency and care by independent groups. Only when they outsource things do they really go down hill. Sorry, you are just about as wrong as can be on the VA.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by shaggles (July 24, 2009 10:52 am ET)
      3  
      It was a strawman but what irritates me about this more is that there is nothing terrible about the British healthcare system. It produces results equal to our own for half the cost. People bring up the UK or Canada as though people are dying in the streets but in fact their healthcare systems function very well.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by shaggles (July 24, 2009 10:55 am ET)
        2  
        Forgot to say also: As far as beauracracies go you'd be hard pressed to find one bigger and bulkier than the current US system. Beauracracies are not unique to government.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by highliter (July 24, 2009 1:16 pm ET)
          1
        Then tell me why do citizens of those country come here if they need Major medical care.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by LittleFuzzy (July 24, 2009 2:04 pm ET)
          1  
          Tell me why Americans go to India for surgery.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by highliter (July 24, 2009 2:29 pm ET)
              1
            Wow a whole 150,000 went there and they went there because it was cheaper not better. FYI most of India Doctors are American trained.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by highliter (July 24, 2009 2:32 pm ET)
              1
            Oh and buy the way there are virtually no malpractices laws there so if something goes wrong your screwed. No malpractices is also a reason why it is cheaper. But Pres Obama wont touch tort reform hes to buddy buddy with the trial lawyers.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by LittleFuzzy (July 24, 2009 2:59 pm ET)
              1  
              The 150,000 number is pure guesswork, BTW.

              How many were inbound medical tourists? No accurate figures on that either.

              US health care is for the rich.
              Report Abuse
        • Author by shaggles (July 24, 2009 2:57 pm ET)
          1  
          What does that have to do with the fact that UK and Canadian medical results are comparable to ours at half the cost?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by highliter (July 24, 2009 9:32 pm ET)
              1
            Read the article I posed above and tell me again how the results are comparable.
            Report Abuse
    • Author by wolf kotenberg (July 24, 2009 12:59 pm ET)
      1  
      Axwlro is correct. Insurance companies are rationing care. Just ask any cancer patient.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by fishergirlusmc (July 24, 2009 1:11 pm ET)
        2  
        My sister is currenly being treated for breast cancer and her care has been excellent. They originally wanted to perform a double masectomy, but after going for a second opinion at Sloane Kettering in NYC they instead did a lumpectomy and now she is in her fifth week of radiation.She has recieved great care. My mother is also a breast cancer survivor and thank God has been cancer free for eight years now. She also had excellent care.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by highliter (July 24, 2009 1:18 pm ET)
            1
          Oh that probably because your rich no normal person could get that care in America.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by foghornleghorn (July 24, 2009 3:08 pm ET)
            1  
            Yet again, the point is missed. It's not that no normal person couldn't get that care, it's that not EVERYONE can get that care, whether people are uninsured or underinsured or have some "pre-existing condition that allowed desk jockeys to deny treatment.

            Get it?
            Report Abuse
      • Author by highliter (July 24, 2009 1:17 pm ET)
          1
        If that is the case which country would you rather be treated for cancer in?
        Report Abuse
      • Author by highliter (July 24, 2009 1:23 pm ET)
          1
        http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/561737

        you might want to read this before you decide where you would want cancer treatment.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by military_husband (July 24, 2009 1:42 pm ET)
          1  
          You want to bring up all of the areas where we are way behind every other industrialized nation as far as health care goes? No of course not. Bring up one statistic about cancer (when there could easily be other factors in why that is) and pretend all of the other stuff doesn't matter like quality of life, quality of care, health of the citizens of each country, etc.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by highliter (July 24, 2009 2:09 pm ET)
              1
            And what areas would we be so behind in.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by highliter (July 24, 2009 2:26 pm ET)
                2
              wait I already know what the answer will be you will bring say that our life expectancy is low so that proves our health care system is bad. Few points about that Americas are fat and lazy and live very unhealthy lifestyles, we also have a very accidents, and violent crime death rates, as well as the terrible life expectance of the African American male. All of which skew our life expectancy as a country. The same is true for our infant mortality rate, that number is skewed by all the crack babies, alcohol fetal syndrome babies and all the smoking mothers is this country. None of this has anything to do with our hospitals and doctors! I want you to give me example of a major disease that you would rather have treated in another country!!

              Report Abuse
              • Author by LittleFuzzy (July 24, 2009 4:43 pm ET)
                1  
                The answer does not lie with the doctors and hospitals, as they are not the problem under discussion.

                The problem lies with the bureaucracy which stands between the patient and getting the treatment delivered - the bureaucracy of HC insurance companies. This bureaucracy stands in the way of preventive medicine as it views that as corporate costs.

                Most of the things which you claim are "skewing" the numbers are in reality small percentages. Most of the factors reducing life expectancy and quality of health figures can be dealt with through preventive medicine.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by military_husband (July 24, 2009 10:47 pm ET)
                1  
                Amazing. You talk about the other factors that could easily explain the numerous areas we are behind in but tout the one area we are ahead in and pretend there is no way circumstances other than socialized health care could be the reason. Clearly your agenda shows through. Yes, explain away death rates, the lousy health and infant mortality rates with factors, but could you do it with factors THAT THE OTHER COUNTRIES DON"T ALSO HAVE. Drugs, a poor underclass, and dangerous sections of major cities are not exclusive to the US. Sheesh, you have to be pretty unamerican to act as if these problems are exclusive to the US.

                And the "where would you want to be treated" thing is very lame. As anyone would say, i want to be treated here. I would rather get excellent care in my own country. Alas, for more and more Americans, that is not an option they have anymore. I have heard that an average of 60 American lose their health insurance EVERY DAY. These people can not get treatment for any major disease unless it is through emergency care. At that point it is waay more expensive and WE PAY FOR IT. So here are the real options: Continue to pay for uninsured people using emergency are at a much higher cost or get these people health coverage and pay less. I choose the lower cost personally.
                Report Abuse