CNN again uncritically aired McCain's false suggestion that Dems are proposing a "nationalized health-care system"
SUMMARY: CNN's Jim Acosta uncritically aired video of Sen. John McCain asserting: "There are those who are convinced the solution is to move to a nationalized health-care system," echoing his repeated assertions that Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are proposing government-run health care. But, while McCain has routinely made such assertions, Acosta did not note that McCain's suggestion is false; neither Clinton nor Obama has proposed a "nationalized health-care system."
On the May 3 edition of CNN's Ballot Bowl '08, during both the 3 p.m. and 5 p.m. ET hours, host Jim Acosta uncritically aired video of Sen. John McCain asserting: "There are those who are convinced the solution is to move to a nationalized health-care system. They urge universal coverage with all the tax increases, new mandates and government regulation that come along with that idea. ... And by the way, the next time you think the government should take over the health-care system of America, go to our airport and go through security." McCain's comments echo his repeated assertions that Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are proposing government-run health care. But, while McCain has routinely made such assertions, Acosta did not note that McCain's suggestion is false. In fact, as Media Matters for America has noted when CNN has repeatedly, uncritically aired -- or repeated -- similar attacks by McCain, neither Clinton nor Obama has proposed a "nationalized health-care system." Indeed, as The New York Times reported in a May 3 article, "McCain has been repeatedly suggesting that his Democratic rivals are proposing a single-payer, or even a nationalized health-care system along the lines of those in countries like Canada and Britain. The suggestion is incorrect."
Despite the fact that neither Clinton nor Obama has proposed a nationalized health-care system, Acosta twice described McCain rejecting government-run health care. During the 3 p.m. program, Acosta stated that McCain "reject[ed] proposals for a government-run, universal health-care system," while during the 5 p.m. hour, Acosta said that McCain is "essentially coming out against, very strongly, any kind of government-run, government-managed universal health-care system."
By contrast, Times reporters Michael Cooper and Julie Bosman, noted in their May 3 article that McCain has repeatedly "inaccurately described the Democrats' health-care proposals, using language that evokes the specter of socialized medicine." From the May 3 article:
McCain has been repeatedly suggesting that his Democratic rivals are proposing a single-payer, or even a nationalized health care system along the lines of those in countries like Canada and Britain.
The suggestion is incorrect. While both Senator Barack Obama of Illinois and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York are calling for universal health care and an expanded role for government, they stop well short of calling for a single-payer plan.
Mr. McCain has made the assertion several times in recent days, even as he and the Republicans have made repeated calls for accuracy on the campaign trail. They have been complaining indignantly that the Democrats were grossly distorting his position by suggesting that he favors a "100-year war" in Iraq, when he has simply said that he would be fine with stationing troops there for 100 years as long as there were no more American casualties.
Yet on repeated occasions, Mr. McCain, of Arizona, has inaccurately described the Democrats' health care proposals, using language that evokes the specter of socialized medicine.
[...]
Both candidates have called for universal health coverage, with Mrs. Clinton saying she would require everyone to have insurance and Mr. Obama saying he would mandate coverage for children. Both would maintain the existing private insurance system, providing government subsidies or tax credits to help the low-income uninsured afford premiums. And they would give consumers a new option to buy insurance from the federal government, with policies along the lines of Medicare.
Media Matters previously documented that CNN has repeatedly allowed McCain to mischaracterize Obama's and Clinton's health-care plans. On April 28 and 29, for instance, CNN uncritically aired video of McCain falsely suggesting that the Democratic candidates favor a "one-size-fits-all, big-government takeover of health care," and that "[t]hey want the government to make the decisions."
From the 3 p.m. hour of the May 3 edition of CNN's Ballot Bowl '08:
ACOSTA: Senator McCain has come under some criticism from Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, as not showing enough detail when it comes to his health-care proposal. But John McCain says not so fast -- he also is concerned about this issue, he says, and he's got some solutions for it, according to his campaign. So here's John McCain talking about the issue of health care in Cleveland.
McCAIN [video clip]: There are those who are convinced that the solution is to move closer to a nationalized health-care system. They urge universal coverage with all the tax increases, new mandates, and government regulation that come along with that idea.
But in the end, this will accomplish only one thing: We will replace the inefficiency, irrationality, and uncontrolled costs of the current system with the inefficiency, irrationality, and uncontrolled costs of a government monopoly. That's what we will do.
And by the way, the next time you think that the government should take over the health-care system in America, go to our airport and go through security. Anyway, we have -- we have all the problems and more of private health care -- rigid rules, long waits, and lack of choices -- and risk degrading in great strengths and advantages, including innovation and life-saving technology that makes American medicine the most advanced in the world. I have a different vision.
[...]
McCAIN [video clip]: We should pay a single bill -- a single bill for high-quality disease care, not an endless series of bills for presurgical tests and visits, hospitalizations and surgery, and follow-up tests, drugs, and office visits. Paying for coordinated care means that every single provider is now united in being responsive to the needs of a single person, the patient.
ACOSTA: So there you have it, John McCain on the issue of health care, rejecting proposals for a government-run, universal health-care system. John McCain talking about his health-care plans there in front of a big crowd there in Cleveland, Ohio.
And coming up after a break, here on Ballot Bowl on CNN, we'll check in with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and their plans for the economy.
From the 5 p.m. hour of the May 3 edition of CNN's Ballot Bowl '08:
ACOSTA: We want to switch gears now to the presumptive Republican nominee, John McCain. He is still out there on the campaign trail, and he is fighting hard to basically gather some attention to his campaign, as we are seeing so much attention paid to the slugfest between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
John McCain, hitting some battleground states these days, visiting places like Pennsylvania and Iowa. He also made a pit stop in Ohio, where he talked about the issue of health care. And the senator from Arizona essentially coming out against, very strongly, any kind of government-run, government-managed universal health-care system. So here is John McCain on the issue of health care in Cleveland.
McCAIN [video clip]: There are those who are convinced that the solution is to move closer to a nationalized health-care system. They urge universal coverage with all the tax increases, new mandates, and government regulation that come along with that idea.
But in the end, this will accomplish only one thing: We will replace the inefficiency, irrationality, and uncontrolled costs of the current system with the inefficiency, irrationality, and uncontrolled costs of a government monopoly. That's what we will do.
And by the way, the next time you think that the government should take over the health-care system in America, go to our airport and go through security.
[...]
ACOSTA: There you have it, John McCain on the issue of health care in Cleveland, Ohio.
And coming up after the break here on Ballot Bowl on CNN, we'll have more from the campaign trail later on. But up next, a check of the headlines from our Fredricka Whitfield in Atlanta. And she will be taking a look at those storms that are wreaking havoc there in the Southeast. So stick with us, this is Ballot Bowl on CNN.
Does "Nationalized" have the precise a meaning that it can't apply to a govt. subsidized program? I may be on the WITH boat here. I do like this, though;
We will replace the inefficiency, irrationality, and uncontrolled costs of the current system with the inefficiency, irrationality, and uncontrolled costs of a government monopoly. That's what we will do. (McCain)
That's the sort of Can-Do spirit I look for in a president!
That's what I was wondering!!
It's clear to me that he hates America, with a deep and abiding hatred.
I guess that's what happens when you have 8--count em' 8--homes, and your wife is worth $100 million.
I guess you kind of lose touch with what it means to be an American.
Aw come on Audit, John & Teresa Kerry own 5 homes & she's worth about $500 million.
Let's just say both John & John married well ;-)
Remember it's...First time for love, second time for money.
You have a point here Jeter...
I was stretching it a bit.
Exactly. And Kerry was absolutely hammered for that. Called a gold-digger. People questioning Kerry's first marriage and all. Has anyone even remotely looked into the parallels with McCain and why he is enjoying the preferential treatment?
Personally all of those things are BS, but I talked to many conservatives in the last election who seemed to think it disqualified Kerry from consideration. The asymmetry is astounding.
You have a very good point as well Open Mind...
And your point trumps Jeter2 on this.
Why the F*ch isn't Grampy being hounded like John Kerry was?
Audit,
I was addressing your contention that the very wealthy "lose touch" with what it means to be an American. I'm gonna guess you meant an "average" American. You pointed out that McCain had wed a very wealthy woman. I pointed out so had Kerry.
Open_Mind brought into the discussion a different angle, and an important one. Why was Kerry "hammered" while McCain appears to be receiving "preferential treatment".
Of course we could also ask, why should the media care about either marriage?
This very subject came up months ago on a different thread. At the time I suggested that because McCain's marriage is now almost 3 decades old while Kerry's [at the time he was running for Prez] had occurred only about 10 years before, that the media still felt it was newsworthy. Kerry a divorced Senator had gained a reputation as a swinging bachelor [having dated a number of Hollywood types & other socialites] then wound up marrying a very wealth widow of a former Senate colleague.
McCain of course has admitted being a bit of a hound himself during his bachelor days & met his current multi-millionaire wife while still married to wife #1.
So yes, as Open_Mind pointed out the parallels are there.
Here's what I think. The media considers McCain an elder statesman of sorts. So this has garnered him a level of respect [deserved or not] they never gave John Kerry. Also I believe the media may see his [McCain's] past, regarding his bachelor days, first marriage & re-marriage as ancient history. And IMO, the media just doesn't find it interesting or newsworthy.
Is that fair? No, of course not. Kerry got bludgeoned for past history.
Also I believe the media may see his [McCain's] past, regarding his bachelor days, first marriage & re-marriage as ancient history.
And that again would be another double standard. For Republican candidates, multiple marriages are ancient history. For Democratic candidates, that's called "baggage".
Just keeping ya honest, bud! ;)
You don't need to keep me honest Snoop.
I'm just giving you my theory about why the media seems uninterested in McCain's past.
Right or wrong, that's my opinion.
Why don't you also consider those government agencies you disdain have been so woefully underfunded and mismanaged by the conservative privatization junkies that they are barely recognizable.
Anyway it doesn't matter much. You are in the minority. People side with liberals on this issue of healthcare and the government's role to act on behalf of we the people. People want government intervention because the market has failed, along with failing on many other public seervices, to produce healthcare for all.
Snoop,
Take a look at this for McCain's Health Care plan
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/19ba2f1c-c03f-4ac2-8cd5-5cf2edb527cf.htmSnoop,
Thanks for agreeing with me that your first post was incorrect.
What I want to know is if, in your fist post where you said McCain has no counter-plan you were being intentionally dishonest or were just trying to be snarky. :-)
ps. Thanks for the link.
AA,
You need to remember the saying about people in glass houses!
Snoop,
I see that it is your own personal opinion as your criteria for deciding what is a plan and what isn't. Perhaps you don't know the difference?
It would have been much simpler if you would preface your opinions as "imho". However I won't hold my breath. :-)
I like the way you redefine McCain's "plan". He doesn't have a new plan, just the same old same old. Nothing new, which correctly explains why he set up a straw man argument to campaign against. Sorry you don't like facts, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see McCain isn't proposing anything new.
(I've got a glass house in this case, since I make typos regularly on here.)
Mary, think of my fist and AA's... bottom. ;)
That darned outside voice again, always getting me into trouble!
Snoop,
It really was a minor point I made regarding the fact that McCain does have a plan but for some reason you seem unable to accept that fact.
Changing your wording to now include the word "new" does not change your original post. However I do understand that is now the point your are trying to make.
A simple "I meant a new plan" would have sufficed. However I won't hold....
:-)
See my response farther down.
Take a look at this for McCain's Health Care plan
I figured McCain's health plan was the standard RepubliKKKan health plan - don't get sick. :-)
wz,
Next you'll be saying the Republicans had something to do with spreading AIDS in African Americans no doubt. :-)
(Seriously though, why anyone would think resorting to bigoted references is funny is beyond me.)
wz,
Next you'll be saying the Republicans had something to do with spreading AIDS in African Americans no doubt. :-)
(Seriously though, why anyone would think resorting to bigoted references is funny is beyond me.)
From my perspective as a white male, I never thought AIDS was a government plot. Yet, Black America has one sterling example of how the government purposely made one group of Americans sick so they could be studied - the Tuskeegee Airmen. And if the government could do that ONCE, it's quite possible it could do it again.
My comment about teh Republican Health Plan was based on a bumper sticker I see from time to time. It's also based on the basic Republican philosophy of "Every Man For Himself".
WZ,
The experiments in Tuskegee were not with the Airmen. The experiment was conducted on AA men who had already contracted the disease. The government studied the natural progression of the disease when a readily available treatment was available. This experiment did not end until 1972. Here is some information regarding this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Study_of_Untreated_Syphilis_in_the_Negro_Male
The Tuskegge Airmen were airmen during WWII. The all AA airmen flew with distinction during the war. Some information about them can be found here http://www.ecctai.com/ecc/taistory.htm
Your general point was correct I just wanted to put the facts out there.
You're right - I realized my mistake while driving home last night. That useless idiot Mark Levin was talking about the Tuskeegee Experiment on his radio pukefest, using it as evidence why we need smaller government.
All we really need is more open and honest government...
H-Man,
Jonah Goldberg wrote about it yesterday.
In 1932, public health researchers set out to study syphilis, particularly among African-Americans, who had higher infection rates than whites. They recruited 399 black men who already had syphilis. The doctors infected no one. In fact, the patients were selected in the first place because they were tertiary-stage syphilitics who were no longer contagious.
The researchers studied the progress of the disease, without treating it, for 40 years.
Prior to the availability of penicillin in the 1940s and 1950s, the researchers couldn’t have treated the men even if they wanted to. Even after standardized penicillin treatments were available, it wasn’t clear that the patients could have been helped. Some of the doctors believed that treating the decades-long infections would kill the men.
Among scholars who’ve studied Tuskegee, there’s a lot of debate about how much — if any — racism was involved in the experiment. But no one disputes that Tuskegee had nothing whatsoever to do with genocide or even a desire to spread the disease among the black population.
What was bad about the Tuskegee experiment was a callous disregard for the humanity and integrity of the patients. They were told they were getting “treatments” when they were merely being studied. They were lied to, treated as objects rather than citizens. This is even more offensive today, now that we have modern legal and ethical rules about informed consent — rules that did not exist when the study was launched. But it was still wrong. ...
... Indeed, it’s worth noting that the Tuskegee study, launched under the New Deal, was symptomatic of arrogant liberal government. The study “emerged out of a liberal progressive public health movement concerned about the health and well-being of the African-American population,” writes University of Chicago professor Richard Schweder. He adds: “The study was done with the full knowledge, endorsement and participation of African-American medical professionals, hospitals and research institutes.”
Liberals like to invoke Tuskegee as if it’s solely an indictment of what other people did, proof that we need more progressive government. But Tuskegee was in fact the poisoned fruit of progressive government. ...
http://townhall.com/columnists/JonahGoldberg/2008/05/02/tall_tales_about_tuskegee?page=2AA, I know your affinity for townhall, but Goldberg leaves out a few key points that undermine his point.
First, by 1947, penicillin had become standard treatment for syphilis. The study was concluded in 1972 only when a leak to the press caused public out-rage. Instead of treating the men (which at whatever stage their syphilis was, by the early '50s it was well known that penicillin would cure it, no matter what Goldberg says,) the scientists consciously with-held information about penicillin and the drug itself, and even admitted in a report that "So far, we are keeping the known positive patients from getting treatment."
The study was seen as racist precisely because the entire study was conducted with only black men who had not given informed consent and were not informed of their diagnosis. Over 100 of the men died either directly from syphilis or from complications, and more than a few of who were told they were given "treatment" when in actuality it was a placebo. They infected their wives, and about 20 of their children suffered needlessly from congenital syphilis.
While Goldberg has somewhat of a point, he glosses over the extreme lack of ethics of the study that to this day are still studied in medical schools for its ethical implications.
Oh, and Goldberg believes Nazis were on the left. That basically destroys his credibility right there.
McCain's plan reads like cruel joke.
He's mostly repackaging the same crap that got us into the mess we're in.
Until recently, McCain's health care plan completely ignored the issue of pre-exisiting conditions.
Since the page was revamped, he now calls his ignorance of the issue a "myth" and then tells us that now he's going to shunt the problem onto the states and "work with governors" to find a "best practice."
For example, to insure the "uninsurable" he would urge States to "establish a nonprofit corporation that would contract with insurers to cover patients who have been denied insurance and could join with other state plans to enlarge pools and lower overhead costs."
How would this work unless it's nationalized? The weakness in his "plan" is that it's a bastardized combination of Free Market hocus pocus and States Rights sops. In other words, nothing will get done.
McBush said he doesn't understand economics too well...
or healthcare, or veterans' benefits, or the Iraq war, or his pastor John Hagee, or tax cuts.
Is there anything else?
Does "Nationalized" have the precise a meaning that it can't apply to a govt. subsidized program?
It's a scare tactic being used by the left. And health care proposal suggested by a Democrat - even the Clinton and Obama plans that work within the existing insurance system - are referred to as "socialized medicine", in order to scare the voters into voting RepubliKKKan.
Too many people are making too much money on the current system. The same deep pockets that strangled "Hillarycare" in the cradle will do the same this time around.
I don't know if you all saw the PBS's FRONTLINE show "Sick Around The World"... it's about as clear a presentation of this subject matter as you can get, and about as good as this kind of documentary gets too, on television... there's a web-site for it:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/
...and you can actually watch the whole program in it's entirety, online.
There's a page under "PRESS REACTION", and a few of the quotes are:
"This fast-moving and entertaining hour starts from the premise that the American health care system ... is a failure. And Mr. Reid makes the case (in about 10 minutes per country) that other capitalist democracies have not just cheaper more equally available health care, but also better care over all, with longer life expectancies and lower infant mortality rates." [Mike Hale, The New York Times]
"This is an important, most welcomed contribution to the debate over health care -- definitely worth a look tonight." [Jonathan Cohn, The New Republic]
"What you'll take away from 'Sick Around the World' is the impression that the most common-sense ideas about health care ... are, to our ears, sufficiently heretical that they can be uttered only in a Taiwanese, German, or Swiss accent." [James Parker, the Boston Phoenix]
Check it out if you haven't already seen it... it's awesome.
Once you've seen it, you'll never be able to stomach listening to sanjay gupta on CNN ever again.
(sanjay gupta, who now in the aftermath of hearing that DEFENSE LOBBYISTS were being promoted by CNN et al, as "military analysts", has me thinking that gupta is just a LOBBYIST too, for the drug industry or the AMA, or what's the difference.)
He's been cited in these pages I believe, that stossel character has, here at MMFA... as far as gupta goes, I don't recall MMFA ever snagging him on anything he has ever said at CNN, but then, he maybe lies outside their jurisdiction (but lies anyway I'm sure, in somebody's jurisdiction)... so MMFA doesn't weigh his words I guess, since it's merely medicine and health the guy is supposedly talking about, as opposed to National Policy... wait, doesn't medicine and health have something to do with national Policy? What's this MMFA item, and this comment thread about again?
MMFA maybe could use a fact-checker on their staff, specializing in the things said by sanjay gupta at CNN... maybe Michael Moore, or somebody like that.
Mary,
Can you support your assertion that Stossel lied about Health Coverage?
AA wrote:
>>Can you support your assertion that Stossel lied about Health Coverage?
Mary didn't say he lied. She said the presentations were dishonest and biased.
link
link
funny,
Are you Mary in disguise? (I wondered since you replied rather than Mary.) :-)
I find your word smithing interesting. Can you tell me the difference between lying and being dishonest?
I do appreciate your links but since you decided not to post the relevant parts of those links and the one link I clicked on was just another MMFA thread, I will not bother to go searching. Maybe there is a point in those threads. I'll wait to hear from you as to how they prove Mary's assertion of Stossel's "dishonesty".
AA wrote:
Yes, we are playing by AA rules. When AA posts a link, it almost never backs up what he says. I post a link, and AA says he won't read it because it is a MMFA "post." The title of the MMFA piece is "Stossel report again failed to identify conservative expert, did not report WHO rankings of health care systems."
Yes, AA, I can see why you would not have wanted to read that link because it probably refutes what you believe about Stossel.
Being dishonest means to mislead by a selective use of facts, for example. Lying usually means to outright make up stuff, which Stossel has done, thought not with his series on health care. Interestingly, there is also a thing called a linguistic lie, which results when one deliberately misleads.
Oh, the second link notes:
Summary: During a one-hour report on ABC's 20/20 on "America's health-care system," co-host John Stossel interviewed five advocates of free-market approaches to health care but only one advocate of increased government-mandated health coverage. The five free-market advocates were interviewed on air for a total of 6 minutes, 24 seconds, while the lone advocate of a public health system, filmmaker Michael Moore, was interviewed on air for a total of 1:40.
bold off!
Funny,
Thanks for cutting out what you felt was relevant from those links. However I fail to see how it proves your point. Granted Stossel pushes his libertarian point of view, however that does not make his report dishonest.
As for me, I do my best to quote the relevant parts of any link I provide rather than just the link. I view the link itself is as a courtesy for anyone interested to read my source.
Had I more time or more interest, perhaps I would have dug through your links. Even though I don't always agree, I think Stossel provides an interesting viewpoint. Thanks again for the providing the quote .
Then there are his lying. If you need to outright lie, or present only a one sided view of an issue, you must think that your arguments won't hold up. This is why I don't respect his views.
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0408-01.htm
http://www.organicconsumers.org/Organic/stossellies.cfm
Haven't researched his health care reports but it's obvious that his "facts" can't be trusted. Maybe I'll look into his health care pronouncements later.
Mary wrote:
>>Funnyman, I did say that he lies:
Yes, you did! I was wrong. When I re-read our post, I realized you did say that.
I was aware of the lie in your second link, but not the one in your first link. The man is one dishonest moron.
The New York Times is now reported that Hillary Clinton's universal health care plan will be accomplished through "enforcement measures" that may include garnishing the wages of people who choose not to buy health insurance.
Sounds like a 'nationalized' plan to me.
see:
http://www.naturalnews.com/022612.htmlAA,
Have you read about Clinton's plan from her website like you did McCain's?
If you didn't, maybe you should, instead of reading an editorial about it.
And, was it the New York Times or Natural News that said this?
Yeah. I read Hillary's website. You have to click on the link to find the part that says:
Individuals: will be required to get and keep insurance in a system where insurance is affordable and accessible.
The reference, (which I messed up,) was from the Natural News. They are referring to the NYTimes. Sorry for the confusion.
AA,
I didn't see anything about garnishing wages, did you?
I didn't see anything about garnishing wages, did you?
Me, neither. I mean, here in Texas we're required to have car insurance, but they don't garish your waes if you don't buy it on your own - why would health care be any different?
Snoop,
You are not reading what I am writing. I didn't say I believe McCain. I only showed everyone that you were either deliberately being dishonest regarding McCain having no plan or you were passing off your opinion as fact.
I do believe you have proved it to be the latter.
Posting the link to McCain's own website did indeed prove either of the above.
Posting the critiques of Obama and Hillary were only to do just that. If you want to critique McCain be my guest.
Since you don't see it, let's try again...
John McCain Believes The Key To Health Care Reform Is To Restore Control To The Patients Themselves.
The President believes the Federal government can help make health care more accessible and affordable, while leaving medical decisions in the hands of patients and the doctors that treat them.
John McCain Will Reform Health Care Making It Easier For Individuals And Families To Obtain Insurance.
The President reformed Medicare to add a prescription drug benefit and give beneficiaries more private plan choices.
John McCain Will Encourage And Expand The Benefits Of Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) For Families.
The President has proposed expanding Health Savings Accounts (HSAs).
John McCain: TRANSPARENCY: Bringing Transparency To Health Care Costs.
The President has taken steps to increase the transparency of America's health care system and empower Americans to find better value and better care.
John McCain: STATE FLEXIBILITY: Encouraging States To Lower Costs.
The President supports permitting the purchase of health insurance across State lines.
Are you getting it yet? It's not McSames plan. He didn't come up with anything new, it's a platform that was handed to him by the bushies. He's branding it as "his plan for health care reform" but it's nothing more than the continuation of current policies. That is not a new plan, it's not even a plan. It's a policy currently underway that he's trying to brand as a plan when it's just continuation of a policy already in place. Sorry, there was no dishonesty or opinion on my part, it's a cold hard fact that you are denying.
Snoopy wrote:
>>that is not a new plan, it's not even a plan.
So let me get this straight. There are rocks falling off a cliff on to my house every six months, doing some serious damage. Hillary proposes a plan that involves building a retaining wall. She is unsure how she will pay for this; maybe through a neighborhood tax.
McSame states that he thinks the free market should fix the problem. He wants everyone to decide for himself! He does not propose to build any retaining wall. He does not propose to do anything to alter the course of the falling rocks, besides repeating free market rhetoric.
How can you say that McSame doesn't have a plan? What are you snoopy, a liberal or something?
Of course Hillary would not want to put the word "garnish" on her website. She needs to hide the fact that is what she would have the government actually do to enforce her mandatory enrollment.
This quote is from Time:
Clinton has not always specified the enforcement measures she would embrace, but when pressed on ABC's "This Week," she said: "I think there are a number of mechanisms" that are possible, including "going after people's wages, automatic enrollment."
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1709472,00.html
If you still want to defend Hillary's plan, please explain to us how Hillary will require someone making $50,000 a year to have and pay for health insurance? Thanks. :-)
DB,
I have known some young and older people who don't want health insurance.. or more importantly they don't want to pay for it which in this context is the same thing. (If it were no cost nobody would object.) My link earlier to the natural medicine person didn't want health insurance.
Anyway, so what if scientologists or anyone else doesn't want health insurance? Where does government get the right to force them to buy it? It is government coercion and an assault on basic freedom.
AA wrote:
>>Anyway, so what if scientologists or anyone else doesn't want health insurance? Where does government get the right to force them to buy it? It is government coercion and an assault on basic freedom
Yes, but so is the government making us buy car insurance, the government telling us how fast to drive, etc. If citizens don't like the so-called assaults on freedom, they can vote for politicians who will not impose awful things on its citizens, like affordable health care.
But you might want to look at countries that do have national health care, like Germany. In Germany, you can have as much as 90% of the citizens vote. And no party has every ever put fourth a proposal to get rid of the health care system. In another words, citizens like it.
Funny,
You are correct, the governement does force into buying car insurance. I do believe that is at the state level. But as far as I know, I believe the state only mandates liability so we can pay the other guy if we cause an accident.
Banks can demand insurance in order for you to get a loan. But that is also different.
I am not arguing the benefits of having insurance. I am not arguing against everyone having access to health care. It is the mandatory part I don't like.
Sounds like a 'nationalized' plan to me.
It depends on which definition you use. From www.dictionary.com:
na·tion·al·ize verb, -ized, -iz·ing.
–verb (used with object) 1.to bring under the ownership or control of a nation, as industries and land: a movement to nationalize the oil industry. 2.to make into a nation. 3.to naturalize. 4.to make national in extent or scope: a magazine article that nationalized a local problem. –verb (used without object) 5.to become nationalized or naturalized: Those who remain in the country must nationalize.*****
1. The Clinton and Obama plans would NOT bring health care under government ownership or control; they both worh within the existing ownership and insurance systems to make health insurance coverage available to more people than today.
2. This definition is not applicable.
3. Neither is this definition.
4. The health care situation is becoming national in scope because it's finally being discussed on a national basis.
5. Another definition that is not applicable.
Obama would rely much more on the heavy hand of government. Among other things, he would impose caps on insurance premiums and price controls on drug companies. He would have the government establish national practice standards for doctors. And, he would create a National Health Insurance Exchange as a sort of clearinghouse to make it easier for businesses and individuals to shop for the best insurance.
Sounds like a 'nationalized' plan to me.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9266AA,
Not surprisingly, you have misconstrued Obama's plan as well. He is not proposing a "Nationalized" plan but is supplementing the current Private Insurance system with a National Health Plan for people who don't have insurance.
While McCain will rely on "competition" the same thing that has been relied on for the past 50 years and has led to the current mess.
Unfortunately, this is classic conservatism,
They have absolutely nothing to offer. They know they are in a weak position politically on the issue, so.....
They make stuff up, lie, produce bogus "studies," try to scare people and hope the corporate media carries the water for them.
Conservatism is dead.
Conservatism is dead.
And many conservatives are dead from the neck up. Unfortunately, many of the brain-dead ones have radio talk shows......
Skeptical,
I see your point. Obviously imposing price controls, etc. is not nationalizing it the health industry in the classic sense. It is simply the government running the health care system of private insurance companies.
To me that is virtually the same thing as nationalizing.
I think that this is an area where there is a big distinction, but the media has done a poor job of clarifying it to the people. Therefore there is a lot of mischaracterization. Health care and health insurance are two separate things. Nationalizing, or haveing gov't enter into the health insurance market is way different from gov't run health care, i.e. doctors and nurses are gov't employees.
AA,
Is there any form of universal health coverage you would support?
It is a complicated subject but I prefer the free market. I like McCain's (non)plan better than either of the Democrats. My feeling is that on the whole, whenever government gets involved in social programs, it ends up being counterproductive and causes everyone to pay more. I'd rather the insurance companies pay us and let us pay our own medical bills. That way we can pick and choose ourselves what medical treatment we want and keep the government out of the loop.
I feel the same goals of universal coverage can be obtained by letting the individual manage their healthcare dollars rather than the governement and it can be done without all the additional government bureaucracy.
Does anyone remember Hillary's failed healthcare plan back in the 90's. If I remember correcty, it was so ridiculous that even her own party wouldn't back it.
I think the Democrats' plans will not help in the long run but will only raise costs by adding another layer or two of bureaucracy.
It's such a killing joke this, 'you're on your own,' pap. In situation after situation in which conservatives claim to admire, it's always the all for one and one for all progressive ethic that's at the core. for example, in the military each soldier sacrifices for the benefit of the soldier next to them, no soldier is left behind and you are only as strong as the weakest link. That's collectivism.
In business, cooperation and shared effort produce the best results. In sports, the team carries the individual to greater heights.
So what gives? Why the contradiction in philosophy when we are discharged from service, leave the office or step off the field and go home?
Also, McCain's plan. He foregoes coverage of preventative care in favor of catastrophic care which in essence drives down consumption of medical services, yet he somehow, for some reason, believes that lowered demand for services will translate to lower cost. That is in direct contravention of your hallowed supply and demand beliefs.
Have you really considered the destructive consequences of John's (non) plan?
And Dickens is a good example of the failings of the you're on your own philosophy.
My feeling is that on the whole, whenever government gets involved in social programs, it ends up being counterproductive and causes everyone to pay more. - AA
Really, then why is per capita healthcare spending less and the populations are healthier everywhere there is nationalized healthcare?
I feel the same goals of universal coverage can be obtained by letting the individual manage their healthcare dollars rather than the governement and it can be done without all the additional government bureaucracy. - AA
And this will start happening when? Isn't this what people already have if they have insurance. You know in Canada, people choose whatever family doctor they like it's not dictated by the government. Can't do that with managed care can you?
I think the Democrats' plans will not help in the long run but will only raise costs by adding another layer or two of bureaucracy. - AA
Again, your feeling and thoughts don't automatically make it so.
Ben,
You make great points. There are countries that have cut the for profit insurers out of the equation and are spending about a third of what we spend per capita and are still able to insure everyone.
I think it would be best to approach this like engineers. Set up requirements like being able to choose your own doctor, low waiting lines, lower costs, attractive environment for doctors and lowering costs for malpractice insurance, etc. We can look at programs around the world that are successful in these areas and emulate them. We just need to stop listening to morons who keep calling everything "communism" or "nationalized healthcare" or whatever the focus groups don't like.
We should be able to get this done.
Sounds like a 'nationalized' plan to me - AA
So, a national plan is "bad" in your eyes. So, you would rather support continued profits for the HMO's and insurance companies and big pharma on the graves of the 18,000 people who DIE every year from lack of minimal, basic health insurance.
Why do you hate people so much?
So true Nerzog...
Grampy is just flailing around, throwing out plan after plan, so he can appear to give a crap.
If he gets elected, he'll just say: Look, we aint got no money, these dang wars are expensive. Forget about this health care stuff. "Rev. Hagee, hand me my pitchfork!!."
Repeat: Mc Cain is a maverick and an independent.
Don't let these damn pinkos says that McCain is on the right.
I just found the following article online about the darker side of Gramps McCain. I think everyone should read this article and forward its link to as many people as possible to get the truth out about McCain - the truth he doesn't want anyone to see....
http://www.usvetdsp.com/nov07/mccain_deceit.htm
Another article that shines some light on the cockroach known as Gramps McCain:
http://www.slate.com/id/2189898/
http://www.civitas.org.uk/pubs/bb3Germany.php
the issue of preexisting conditions is an interesting point.
in the first place health insurance really needs a descriptor other than insurance. Insurance is for a devastating event that will happen to a subset of the population and reuin the finances of the person who experiences it and people enter into a contract where each pays a share of the cost, plus overhead, plus possible profit. were auto insurance run like health insurance oil changes would be covered and at best you would pay for premium to cover the oil change, the adjuster and other expenses. you would be dollars ahead if you just paid for an oil change. currently the real cost of health insurance is hidden as a tax free benefit.-many would be better off if they were free to use those tax free dollars for haelth care directly without a middle man
now, if insurance companies are required to take preexisting conditions then they must charge those folks higher premium, or more precisely they will reward those on good health by writing a policy under the standard rate. if they are not allowed to under write they will charge everyone high rates or go under...likely both.
much as i would like to believe this exercise is just to cause insurance people pain, it lloks like naivete or a strategy to make the noational or state governments the only payer left standing.
Test
HR626