NY Post's Hurt falsely claimed "most people believe the federal government is the only thing that could actually make health care worse"
SUMMARY: The New York Post's Charles Hurt wrote that when Sen. Hillary Clinton proposed national health-care reform as first lady, "Americans revolted over her proposals," adding that "she still doesn't understand that most people believe the federal government is the only thing that could actually make health care worse." In fact, recent polling suggests that a majority of Americans support health-care reform proposals that expand the government's role.
In his April 15 "Inside Washington" column on Sen. Hillary Clinton, New York Post Washington bureau chief Charles Hurt wrote that when Clinton proposed national health-care reform as first lady, "Americans revolted over her proposals," adding that "she still doesn't understand that most people believe the federal government is the only thing that could actually make health care worse." While Hurt cited no data to support his claim, at least one recent public opinion poll found that a majority of respondents support health-care reform proposals that expand the government's role. Indeed, a National Public Radio/Kaiser Family Foundation/Harvard School of Public Health poll conducted Feb. 14-24, found that 59 percent of respondents said they supported a health-care reform under which "[g]overnment health insurance programs would be expanded." Further, 54 percent of respondents rated as "strongly favorable," government-provided financial assistance to help low-income people buy insurance. Media Matters for America previously documented numerous 2007 polls indicating that a majority of respondents favored a government program to provide health insurance to all Americans.
From Hurt's April 15 New York Post column:
When her husband wanted to give her a special plaything one year, he gave her national health-care reform.
Americans revolted over her proposals, but she still doesn't understand that most people believe the federal government is the only thing that could actually make health care worse.
The only question I have is in the real world scenario:
Employers who already pay workers insurance, continue to do so
People who pay their own insurance continue to do so
People who already have government assistance still get government assistance
Then you have the people who do not have health insurance and do not want health insurance. These people may have prior illnesses and cannot get a health care solution that they can afford given their current financial situation - whether it be poor financial responsibility, took out bad loans, didnt save anything, etc - who is going to be responsible for paying their health insurance when the bottom line is that they should have the financial means to do so, yet are not responsible enough to budget their money.
Do you make them buy health insurance, and possibly risk losing their homes, cars, pets, etc due to having a smaller monthly budget? Or do they get tax payer assistance from people who make around the same amount as them, but are responsible with their own money?
If they get government assistance, what is to stop others from purposely falling into that bracket looking for free assistance?
a) nothing's free
b) all the countries with gov't provided insurance are rated higher on the deliver on demand scale
c) I assume you work for american healthcare, or are another stoopid poople who thinks they get a great deal buying crap at market price when you could find it lying around in your backyard for free.
"Americans revolted over her proposals, but she still doesn't understand that most people believe the federal government is the only thing that could actually make health care worse."--Hurt
This statement is factually innacurate. Republican lawmakers revolted, and Republicans believe the federal government is the only thing that could actually make health care worse. The US is ranked 39th in indusrialized nations in quality of health care, and 1st (highest) when it comes to costs. If you guys had a better idea, you should have put it on the table between 2000 and 2006 when you controlled everything. BUT NOOOO !
Let's examine the most recent examples of Democratic inefficiency at work;
1) Their primaries. Little substantive policy differences but rather nasty, verbal warfare that would make Karl Rove proud, most notably from Hillary Clinton.
2) The superdelegate nonsense. Who the hell even understands it?, or how it can solve anything or make the process more fair, or easily determined, is anybody's guess? It's elitist in and of itself and only fuels more bitterness within the party, spilling over into their electorate.
3) The Florida and Michigan mess. Punish this state, punish that state, piss off voters from both states whose votes are left with no where to go, revote? No. Mail-in ballots? No. Count them? No, not fair, names were off the ballots, candidates couldn't campaign but primaries were held and now because of the contested and drawn out primary, those votes may well determine the Democratic candidate, but what do we do now?? Oh no!
And they want to take over health care? Ahhhhh, No.
Republicans still had their chance, Tommy. Contrary to what Rick says, they did have their ideas. They thought that magic concoction of tax cuts, health care spending accounts and free-market voodoo could solve the problem.
Now you're here not to tell us why we need to continue supporting the Republican approach, but to tell us that electoral politics (not health care proposals) is why we need to be afraid of the Democrats.
Is McCain the better choice when it comes to health care? His proposals don't even mention anything about preexisting conditions. If he's this oblivious to the biggest problems, what makes you think he can solve them?
Or do you believe in his ability to solve health care problems based solely on his ability to run a happy, trouble-free campaign?
All fear, no answers.
You tell us the government can't fix it, regardless of who is in charge.
The health care industry itself has already proven it can't fix it, or is completely unwilling.
I guess you're right, all we can do is b***h, moan and be afraid.
Oh OK, now it's personal accusation time.
My turn...
You have ultimate faith that the free-market, I've-got-mine-so-screw-you approach is the answer to providing a vital need of the commons (i.e. not HDTV's), despite years of proof that it doesn't work, that is your right-wing, libertarian ideology ideology speaking. Yes, I adamantly disagree on that basic philosophy, and I won't patronize you with a phony apology.
There was nothing patrozing about it Pete, it's the truth. Liberals see government's role much differently than conservatives do. Government is there to fix things, to level the playing field, sorry, I don't see it that way.
If you think that's patronizing, so be it.
"everyone else"?
I have many honest discussions about liberalism and conservatism with many who ascribe very passionately to both ideologies, as I have my disagreements with both.
We disagree.
PBS had a great show last night about other countries' health care systems. Every foreigner said it would be a scandal if someone went bankrupt over health care costs.
In the US, 700,000 go bankrupt EACH YEAR!
Yet the reich wingers with their "utlra-free market" philosophy would rather continue the most INEFFICIENT health care system in the entire world. Profits for the HMO's, big pharma, etc. and poor little Joe Sixpack can just go F*** himself and die an early, painful death because he can't afford insurance.
Very un-American. Very un-Christian. Very stupid.
See there ya go, Tommy
That thing about "having total faith in the government" is more of a Strawman Fallacy"(see my post below).
In the face of conservative failure after conservative small government failure and after the steaming piles of private sector scandalous frauds that have brought us to this recession; you think you possess judgement or standing to criticize anything liberal?
Ridiculous, T. You conservatives are abject failures at everything but pomposity.
As I said, and nobody has yet to defend, look at your own Democratic party and the current fiasco they are embroiled in simply nominating their candidate, and tell me what a roaring success that is?
And then tell me how we should trust your party in light of that massive failure, occurring as we speak.
Enron, for profit healtcare, billions in Iraq, dead soldiers, the housing collapse, Katrina, lead filled toys for our children from China and you wanna grouse about some Democratic infighting?
Pompous.
Much of what you say makes my point perfectly. When government is in charge, or manages anything, it is inherently a mess.
You have provided tons of evidence for just that.
It's when the I hate government Repubs are in charge that government is intentionlly mismanaged. Their flawed by design approach to government is about making an easy case for privatization because that's who conservatives represent; big business interests.
So you're saying that Republicans screw it up on purpose so they can then say "see, government doesn't work".
Somebody better tell them that might hurt them in the polls, or in elections.
Every five minutes conservatives pitch that manure about getting government off your back through tax cuts. They trumpet their efficiency at crushing the environmental and market regulations that hinder the profitibility of business and you think they aren't telling voters, "see, government doesn't work, vote for us and we'll end it"?
Cons anoint the material excesses of the wild west market and toss acid in the face of effective government. So there's really no need for me to tell Republicans it might hurt their electoral chances because they've stumping on this, "gubmint doesn't work," chant for decades.
Thankfully people have caught-on to the betrayal conservatives perpetrated on them and are embracing the activist government form of a call and response democracy instead of this acrimonius conservative us vs. them prescription.
When REPUBLICANS who hate government and want to prove it is useless by displaying their own massive incompetence, exrecising croneyism over quality in hiring practices and work on privatizing every function of government service are in charge, that is when the government lives up to the worst of the expectations of government haters like you. I do not expect the government to be a miracle panacea for all that is wrong with the world, but I do think that it is necessary to solve the problems that the private sector cannot or will not and to exercise the collective will of the people towards improving our country and keeping it at a high standard as a whole.
If, as you say, the government is so useless and unredeemingly incompetent, then why in the name of whatever you find holy do we let them control the nuclear weapons?
Your response that Democrats cannot even choose a nominee, let alone handle national health care is crap. You cannot even begin to connect the two, logically speaking. You see, we don't HAVE TO CHOOSE a nominee until autumn, when we have the convention. Because Republicans very quickly chose a (presumptive) nominee so early only shows that the Republican party really didn't have much to choose from. Come on...McCain is the best Republicans could do?
Everything that Republicans have touched has turned to crap - at the expense of your average American family. They need healthcare solutions, not people like you, Tommy, who complain about government sponsored healthcare as a bogeyman in disguise. Government sponsored healthcare is the only viable option that we haven't tried...current healthcare doesn't cut it. We sure as hell cannot count on insurance company execs to give a damn about Average Joe. Who else to turn to? Got any better ideas?
That's what I thought. You'll just whine some more.
Tommy Tommy Tommy
Your conflating the two isn't even good enough to be a "Strawman Fallacy". I think that your comment should delegated to the "Red Herring Fallacy".
You can call it whatever you like. But a fallacy is a fallacy. And a fallacy is an argument made with no basis in sound logic. And if don't like logic then let me ask you this: Why do hate Mr. Spock? (Now that's what I call a strawman!)
First off, let me say that I agree with you on (2.). I don't understand the superdelegate thing either. But that is completely irrelevent with a health care bill that must have legislative debate and approval to be implemented.
I disagree with you on point (1.). They are trying to win an election, not form policy. Now, to be fair, Bush does use smear (and scare) tactics to form policy.
Point # 3. I live in one of those states--the one shaped like a mitten not like a..--well, anyway; my home state broke primary rules and many dems dropped out on principle (too few in the republican party seem to know what that is). And I don't know what is wrong with debate and confusion about something that is unprecidented in American politics. And what you mentioned are some of the options that require some thought and discussion. And, btw, what does this have to do with policy formation?
I have no idea what, if anything, it has to do with policy formation. But it hardly speaks well of their organizational or managerial prowess. That was my point.
And screwing up health care worse than it is now is for some leap of faith is not something I would support.
Every other advanced country has answered your so-vexing questions. Let me stump you:
If we force people to get auto insurance, can we force them to get health insurance?
If only the sick have health insurance, will it ever be affordable?
Do small businesses enjoy having to provide health insurance?
whether it be poor financial responsibility, took out bad loans, didnt save anything, etc
Yeah, those are the only reasons people can't afford health care in right-wing bizarro world. Might as well let them die.
COLUMBUS:
Simple question:
Today, emergency rooms are prohibited BY LAW from turning away people with life-threatening conditions.
Would you change that law, and allow hospitals to refuse service to anyone who cannot prove beyond any doubt their ability to pay for services received?
"Then you have the people who do not have health insurance and do not want health insurance. These people may have prior illnesses and cannot get a health care solution that they can afford given their current financial situation - whether it be poor financial responsibility, took out bad loans, didnt save anything, etc - who is going to be responsible for paying their health insurance when the bottom line is that they should have the financial means to do so, yet are not responsible enough to budget their money."
Columbus, have you ever thought that these people can't afford health care BECAUSE they got sick in the first place? Did you know, even with excellent health insurance, it still costs over $1000 out of pocket to get an MRI? If you get an abscessed tooth, that's at least $1600 that insurance won't pay (and I'm talking a Fortune 500 company's insurance plan.) And did you really equate people not being able to afford health insurance with not wanting it?
I tell you what, you find me one person who doesn't want health insurance, and you may have a case.
Americans revolted over her proposals, but she still doesn't understand that most people believe the federal government is the only thing that could actually make health care worse.
I'd be happy to see us revolt over something again.
I was looking for the Jefferson quote on how revolt is healthy for a republic, when I came across a quote he had noted from the political philosopher Montesquieu:
“When once a republic is corrupted, there is no possibility of remedying any of the growing evils, but by removing the corruption and restoring its lost principles; every other correction is either useless or a new evil.”--- Charles Montesquieu, The Spirit of the Laws, 1748
Maybe the influence of money in elections, law making, and the press should be first addressed to have a better chance at improving health care.
I agree with Hurt. I went to college before the Feds got into education in a big way (Land grant colleges being from a different era). Tuition was $6 a credit hour. Now with Federal aid up the wazoo, its what - $450?
If anyone is interested in seeing for themselves what socialism looks like, walk through the inner city ghettos, or take a ride through an Indian reservation. Anyone want to trade Canada's or England's health care for ours? The English or Canadians would.
Reagan probably said it best, "...government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."
I would invite the politicians in Washington to keep their grubby little paws off my health care, thank you very much.
edrossinoelwein9669,
I would then invite you to educate yourself on the ills of our government not being the government but those that would run it for their own personal ends.....
When Reagan said that famous line of his he opened up the flood gates for political hacks to run the government. Consider all the arrogant greedy (bas)tards that Reagan put in the many department....
And then Bush I..... and then Clinton after him..... and the crowd of dip(poops) today......
No my friend.... government is not the enemy.... its people that don't want government to work who purposely put people in charge of the government that don't want government to work......
Remember...... the government isn't just those that run it.... it is all of us as a whole..... you know....that society thing.... or is that to American for you?
Federal aid for college was much bigger in the 60s than now.
Most English and Canadians prefer their health care to ours.
Go away.
"...government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."
Government is bad and government can't help people. Vote Republican, and we'll prove it.
Congratulations, you have presented us with a classic logical fallacy, known as "post hoc ergo propter hoc. Using your logic, I could argue, with equal validity, that the incursion into politics by the Religious Right is what caused College tuition to skyrocket. I could also argue that Ronnie Reagan's policies caused it, or the proliferation of multiplex theaters.
Thanks, for playing anyway.
Edross,
Increasing college tuition is not caused by federal aid.
Neither inner city ghettos nor indian reservations are socialist.
Neither the English nor the Canadians want to exchange their health care system for ours.
I suggest you re-examine the sources for your "facts."
30% to 40% admin costs work for you um?
We've had posters from countries with socialized medicine. If queried they unanimously disagree with you. We are on the leading edge of medicine nowhere except profit margins,CEO salaries, and money spent on lobbyists.
Hey, leave Ed alone, Eweston. He went to college when it was cheap. Now that the government's involved, apparently it's expensive, so the kids should stop whining and pull up their bootstraps.
I know, it didn't make much sense to me. But I'm so crazy I can think of a lot of things that would make health care worse. Like hiring violent prison inmates as surgeons, fun prescription grab bags, sterilization of instruments by priests, independent contractors with close ties to the GOP getting no-bid contracts on procedures.........
I think government involvement as a worst case scenario only seems realistic to those whose own attempts at governing have been as pathetic as our current Grand Old Party.
Yes, I am an Ed Basher. I can try to excuse it by claiming descretion. Won't wash. Is there a support group for this?
Given that bootstraps are pretty rare, and made in china, I suspect todays youth can look to their bootstraps less often and with less confidence than our generator, er, generation.
Recognizing your surgen as the man you saw earlier reading "Surgery for Idiots" very ernestly. And hadn't gotten to far into it.
I suspect a certain pleasure in some wingnuts/neocons, in treating people as things under their power. On the other hand they're caught in the political fundraising trap, like most other politicians, riding a tiger.
Anyone want to trade Canada's or England's health care for ours? The English or Canadians would.
Really?
No, that is ludicrous. Last poll I saw only 2% of Canadians would trade for our system. The truth is AMERICANS are the ones that want to trade.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-payer_health_care
According to a Washington Post-ABC News poll in October 2003,[37][38] 62% of respondents preferred "a universal health insurance program, in which everybody is covered under a program like Medicare that's run by the government and financed by taxpayers,"
NY Post's Hurt falsely claimed "most people believe the federal government is the only thing that could actually make health care worse"
Um....Mr Hurt,
That is probably true when you have a bunch of incompetent, ingorant greedy slimy ass-clowns running the government....... like we have now!
Put people in charge that actually want to do the job and then your own stupidity would be debunked..... time will tell
I just hope that it is sooner rather than later.......
Republicans claim "GOVERNMENT IS THE PROBLEM."
When they win elections, they set about proving this claim.
Funny, a COACH who in an interview, says "SPORTS IS THE PROBLEM" ... he won't get the job.
Sabotage is only one of the fears.