GMA interview of Obama health care team ignores progressive concerns
SUMMARY: In an interview with members of the Obama health care team, GMA's Diane Sawyer did not ask any questions based on progressive concerns about health care reform.
In a June 22 Good Morning America interview with members of the Obama administration's health care team, none of anchor Diane Sawyer's questions reflected progressives' concerns or positions. Indeed, some echoed conservative arguments and talking points regarding Obama's health care reform efforts.
Some conservative media, including several hosts on Fox News, have sharply criticized ABC News over the upcoming health care special, which Sean Hannity described as a "Mickey Mouse-sponsored infomercial" -- criticism that Howard Kurtz, CNN and Washington Post media critic, suggested might be an effort to "work the refs." In a conversation with Kurtz on Reliable Sources on June 21, Sawyer defended the upcoming ABC News special, saying that it will include "questions from every single vantage point." But Sawyer's GMA interview with administration staff ahead of the Wednesday "town meeting" did not include "questions from every single vantage point," notably omitting issues raised and positions taken by progressives.
For example, Sawyer did not articulate the progressive position with regard to any of the following:
- Single-payer. President Obama has said that while a single-payer health care system could make sense if we were "starting a system from scratch" and that "there are countries where a single-payer system works pretty well," he believes that health care reform in the United States should build on the current private insurance system. Many progressives support a single-payer system, yet Sawyer did not mention the issue.
- Strong public option. Many progressives believe that for any health care reform effort to be effective, it must include a public insurance plan that will compete with private insurers and will drive down costs and improve quality throughout the market. While Sawyer stated in introducing the interview that, at the "town meeting on Wednesday night ... Americans can ask the president, question him about everything -- what will work, what will not work -- including the president's call for a public insurance option to hold down medical costs," Sawyer did not ask on GMA if the president regards a public plan option as essential to an effective health care reform plan. In a subsequent interview with Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA), co-anchor Robin Roberts mentioned a public plan option, saying, "72 percent of Americans support a public government-run plan as one of the health care options" and saying to Cantor: "Does it appear that there is -- there is a growing group that would like to see the government take a little bit more control." But she also did not note that many progressives say that it is essential to health care reform.
- Co-op proposal. Many progressive economists and health care experts say that Sen. Kent Conrad's (D-ND) cooperative health insurance proposal is not a plausible alternative to a public insurance option. Sawyer did not note these challenges to the proposal, which is actively being considered in Congress, or ask the White House for its view of cooperatives.
Below is a list of questions asked by Sawyer in the GMA interview ABC aired that echo conservative arguments or talking points.
- SAWYER: I began with Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius to ask her about the public fear of a towering $1-to-2 trillion cost. Can Americans afford it?
Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY), ranking member on the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee said of the potential costs of the bill:
First, this bill in its current form would have a devastating impact on our nation's deficit. In his speech before the American Medical Association on Monday, President Obama stated that, "Health care reform must be and will be deficit neutral in the next decade." According to the Congressional Budget Office, this bill falls far short of the President's commitment to deficit neutrality. Preliminary estimates on this incomplete bill find that if enacted, this legislation would increase spending by more than $1.3 trillion over the next ten years. It is astonishing to me that such a policy could even be contemplated in this current fiscal environment.
- SAWYER: We went back and checked Medicare, and, in 1965, everyone was told the projected cost of Medicare over 25 years would be $12 billion. And, of course, it turned out to be $107 billion. And people think, there's no way this isn't going to cost a lot more and that's going to mean more taxes.
From congressional Republicans' health care talking points, published on May 11 (emphasis added): "Democrats are pushing for a government takeover of health care that would have devastating consequences for families and small businesses. A government takeover of health care will raise taxes, ration care, and let government bureaucrats make decisions that should be made by families and their doctors."
- SAWYER: But, of course, that raises the phrase, "rationed care," to everyone. And as we know, Newt Gingrich, who is the -- probably the most vocal spokesperson for the Republican side, has been saying things like this.
GINGRICH [video clip]: If we have been endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, how can a government bureaucrat tell you, you don't deserve the best possible medicine, the best possible procedure, the best possible hospital.
In addition to Gingrich's statement, in a memo titled, "The Language of Healthcare 2009: The 10 Rules for Stopping the 'Washington Takeover' of Healthcare," conservative pollster Frank Luntz cited the following statement from Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) as an example of "words that work": "We don't need some committee rationing care and telling people what they can and can't have. We need to give patients the best choices of health plans and doctors and let them make their own decisions."
- SAWYER: One headline of this then -- to say to Americans, you will be healthier with fewer tests. Trust us. Is that what you're saying?
In his memo, Luntz cites a statement by Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) as an example of "words that work":
The axiom in medical schools all across this country is "if you will listen to the patient, they will tell you what is wrong with them." We've had a shift in our country, as physicians have tried to keep up with the declining reimbursements: they can't listen as well. The practice guidelines they have to follow totally disregard the art of medicine.
I can give you example after example of people who I've diagnosed with diseases that don't fit in the guidelines. In these situations, diagnosing through the art of medicine has saved their life. And the guidelines would have never captured what was needed to save their life.
Under this approach we ignore 40% of the physician's capability to actually make a difference in somebody else's life because we force them to practice cookie cutter medicine that a bureaucrat in Washington decides on.
Luntz also wrote: "Healthcare quality = 'getting the treatment you need, when you need it.' That is how Americans define quality, and so should you. The key opportunity here is that this commitment goes beyond what the Democrats can offer. Their plan will deny people treatments they need and make them wait to get the treatments they can actually receive. This is more than just rationing. To most Americans, rationing suggests limits or shortages -- for others. But personalizing it -- 'delaying your tests and denying your treatment' -- is the concept most likely to change the most minds in your favor" [emphasis in original].
On its "Talking Points" page, congressional Republicans similarly stated that Democrats would deny access to medical care and treatments, claiming, "The Democrats' government-takeover of health care will deny access to medical care and life-saving treatments."
Other questions Sawyer asked that were aired include:
- SAWYER: But if the -- the president said there have been unnecessary CAT scans, unnecessary tests. Who is going to decide what is necessary and unnecessary?
- SAWYER: What percentage of American medicine then do you think is doctors doing unnecessary tests because they're caught in some cycle of unnecessary testing?
- SAWYER: Can't let you go without talking about prevention, because there are a lot of people who say, look, Doctor Mehmet Oz, for instance, says repeatedly, we want to be good Americans. Just come out and announce today that if you are an American, you have to walk 30 minutes a day and that will cut health care costs probably faster than anything else we could do in the country.
- SAWYER: So financial incentives to the people who take care of themselves.
- SAWYER: So my potato chips are un-American?
From the June 22 edition of ABC's Good Morning America:
SAWYER: Now, this is a week Americans we hope will engage in the whole debate about health care reform in a whole new way. ABC News will be having a town meeting on Wednesday night where Americans from the frontlines of health care -- Americans can ask the president, question him about everything -- what will work, what will not work -- including the president's call for a public insurance option to hold down medical costs. Tomorrow, Robin has an exclusive interview with the first lady, Michelle Obama, about health and prevention.
And recently, I sat down with three women on the frontlines from the administration -- the president's top domestic policy adviser, Melody Barnes; the White House health czar, Nancy-Ann DeParle; and I began with Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius to ask her about the public fear of a towering $1-to-2 trillion cost. Can Americans afford it?
[begin video clip]
SEBELIUS: Well, Diane, what we know is that cost currently is crushing families and businesses. Unless we do something, we won't be able to afford the health care we have, the health care we need.
SAWYER: We went back and checked Medicare, and, in 1965, everyone was told the projected cost of Medicare over 25 years would be $12 billion. And, of course, it turned out to be $107 billion. And people think, there's no way this isn't going to cost a lot more and that's going to mean more taxes.
BARNES: I think people are thinking that this is brand-new money that's being printed. There's already $2 trillion worth of health care that's being spent already. This is redirecting that money, so that it's more efficiently and effectively used and so that people are getting better quality health care.
SAWYER: But, of course, that raises the phrase, "rationed care," to everyone. And as we know, Newt Gingrich, who is the -- probably the most vocal spokesperson for the Republican side, has been saying things like this.
GINGRICH [video clip]: If we have been endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, how can a government bureaucrat tell you, you don't deserve the best possible medicine, the best possible procedure, the best possible hospital.
SAWYER: So --
DePARLE: They do deserve the best possible procedure and the best possible hospital. That's what the president is trying to guarantee.
SAWYER: But if the -- the president said there have been unnecessary CAT scans, unnecessary tests. Who is going to decide what is necessary and unnecessary?
DePARLE: Clinicians will make those decisions. When we look around the country, we see that there are areas where there's a lot more utilization, a lot more volume and intensity of testing and unnecessary things.
SEBELIUS: Nobody is going to tell your doctor, he or she can't do a procedure, but there'll be a set of protocols that we know, at the end of the day, actually produce a better result for you and are less intrusive. I don't know a single patient who would, if they thought they could have one MRI instead of three, if they thought, you know what, a drug regime would work as well as surgery, wouldn't say, "Well, don't cut me open. You know, do what works best for me."
And that's really what we're talking about, not cheaper medicine, better medicine each and every time.
SAWYER: One headline of this then -- to say to Americans, you will be healthier with fewer tests. Trust us.
SEBELIUS: You bet.
SAWYER: Is that what you're saying?
SEBELIUS: You bet. Right now, we pay doctors based on how many times they touch a patient, how many tests are given, how many procedures are run, not how well the patient is at the end of the day.
SAWYER: What percentage of American medicine then do you think is doctors doing unnecessary tests because they're caught in some cycle of unnecessary testing?
DePARLE: Well, there have been estimates that as much as 30 percent of it is unnecessary -- but that's not really what this is about. What we're really trying to do and the president is trying to get a system where we can have lower costs for all families and businesses.
SAWYER: Can't let you go without talking about prevention, because there are a lot of people who say, look, Doctor Mehmet Oz, for instance, says repeatedly, we want to be good Americans. Just come out and announce today that if you are an American, you have to walk 30 minutes a day and that will cut health care costs probably faster than anything else we could do in the country.
DePARLE: That's right.
BARNES: Right. I mean, we know that 75 percent of the costs spent on health care go to treating chronic diseases that are preventable - you know, heart disease and others. Some of that is about personal responsibility, but it's also making sure that there are incentives so business -- and we were working with CEOs recently who came in and said, we're working with our staff to make sure that we're reducing obesity rates, that we're working on tobacco cessation -- so those are the kinds of things we need to build up this system.
SAWYER: So financial incentives to the people who take care of themselves.
SEBELIUS: But this is something everybody can do. Parents can turn off the TV and, you know, walk around the block, walk around the room. They can encourage their kids to eat healthier foods. We've got to work with schools to get better food in the cafeteria and more physical activity.
SAWYER: So my potato chips are un-American?
SEBELIUS: Well, once a week.
DePARLE: Well --
BARNES: Well, yeah.
SAWYER: OK. Thank you so much.
[end video clip]
SAWYER: And our thanks to the three of them. And, of course, even on prevention, the Republicans say there's so much that can be done without government involvement.
ROBERTS: But Republicans do agree that changes are needed in the health care system but, Diane, as you said, their prescription is different. A few minutes ago, I talked to House Minority Whip, Congressman Eric Cantor of Virginia.
[begin video clip]
ROBERTS: Congressman Cantor, thank you so much for joining us this morning. We certainly do appreciate it. And you just heard from Secretary Sebelius and she said that the cost of health care is, quote, "crushing families and businesses." Of course, you disagree with much of the Democratic plan. What is the Republican plan going forward?
CANTOR: Well, first of all, Robin, the most important thing for us to make sure is that we do increase coverage to a basic plan for more Americans, and the way we're going to do that is by starting with where people get most of their health care and that's with their employer. And if 70 percent of the people in this country get their health care through their place of work, we've got to be sure to make it so that those employers can keep their costs down.
ROBERTS: There is a new poll as well, Congressman, that says 72 percent of Americans support a public government-run plan as one of the health care options, and 57 percent said that Democrats were more likely to improve health care. Only 18 percent felt that way about Republicans.
Does it appear that there is -- there is a growing group that would like to see the government take a little bit more control. They feel that the government could get answers where individuals have failed to get answers from some insurance companies.
CANTOR: A government plan, no matter what you call it, will increase costs. It will reduce choices, and, essentially, it will not allow you to keep what you have. And that is the essence of what the health care system in this country is about. That's what families are looking for.
ROBERTS: But the Democratic plan would make it illegal for insurance companies to cancel these policies. Again, these are people who have paid their premiums, they got sick, and the Democratic plan would say, no, you cannot do that. Are you ready to say that the Republican plan would do that as well?
CANTOR: Well, what the Republican plan will do is it will look more towards the individual and will say, if you have a plan, your insurer and you are going to determine the length of that coverage. But also, if somehow you lose your job and that's how you get your coverage, we're going to make sure that you've got the flexibility under that plan to take that coverage with you.
ROBERTS: Can you tell us how you plan to pay for it?
CANTOR: When you give employers the flexibility, as well as the employees, and provide some incentive for folks to exercise -- if you do that, you are rewarded with lower premium costs in some of these plans. We ought to allow for more competition so that people can have a choice. You can have a choice of what kind of health care coverage you want. Maybe you're young and healthy and you don't want to purchase coverage for hair transplants or other elective procedures. And maybe you just want a basic plan. We ought to allow for that.
ROBERTS: Congressman Eric Cantor, have a good day. Thank you.
CANTOR: Thanks, Robin.
[end video clip]
Bullsh*t. The Republicans don't want "more competition", because it would cut into the obscene profits now enjoyed by the Insurance Companies.
If there is no "Public option", there will be no real reform.
The point is also the insurance companies know they're wrong (they refused to say whether they would favor a law not to dump sick people from their plans), the politicians know it is wrong and yet money trumps all, even a human being's life and health.
Duh. Of course any medical treatment, including ER treatment, is more expensive than preventable measures, but you don't say what those preventable measures are. Diving slower, not drinking, eating less, exercising more are a few that come to mind... but those can all be done outside of the health care industry. I assume you are referring to preventive medicine, like regular checkups and tests. Do you have any suggestions? If you could regulate the industry, what would you do?
As an aside, I guess I am one of the few... (or perhaps one of the many,) who have had excellent health insurance both by private insurers and supplements from the state for my family and myself over the years.
My costs are going up like everyone else and I, like most, am worried about the ever rising costs along with diminished services when the Obama starts controlling the health industry.
I for one have not been convinced that government run health care will lower costs nor will it improve care. I see my costs going up and my coverage going down.
If the for-profit private insurance industry simply can't compete with the public option, then why do we need them?
"We" don't need them. If "you" need them, go for it.
I really believe massive de- and re-regulation of the healthcare industry could cut costs (and thus premiums) down to where we won't care how much the stupid stockholders are willing to see the CEO paid.
Think about what you'd do if this happened to you. Say you got cancer and your insurance company cut your policy off as a result of an automatically triggered fraud investigation based on the illness you have, and they find that you made a mistake on a single medical form you filled out 20 years ago. This happens all the time.
Then you'd be uninsured and uninsurable with a preexisting condition and you'd be on the hook for the entire cost of your care. If you can't afford it and die as a result, oh well.
This is the nature of health "care" in America today, this is what happens when profit is the prime motivator for the "care" that you receive.
dexteritas0071418 - Mmm, cut-rate doctors.
Dishonesty or reading comprehension difficulties?
But I was being tongue-in-cheek, and Solon didn't mention that he favored pointing the subsidized education at the poor, which I think is a great idea.
I was under the impression you were subsidizing for the express purpose of committing them to serve for less pay in a universal system?
Where would the money come to fund those whom you say would be refused by the private sector? Would the government make sure that those in the public sector "pay their way", similar to the private sector? Would the government sector, if it is losing money go out of business or would it be supplemented? What is to keep the public sector from undercutting the private sector since it doesn't have to make a profit, or even break even? Do you think companies that now provide insurance benefits will drop their insurance benefits once the public sector offers an alternative? Won't that effectively drive the private companies out of business?
Isn't that capitalism? Pay more for better service?
Maybe the private insurance companies could make a little less profit and be able to compete, and stop cherrypicking? You think they'd do that?
On the flip side, would you force the private insurance companies to insure people they don't want to insure?
Classic red herring.
If the Democrats would grow a set, they would purpose raising taxes on the rich.
You guys say government insurance will lead to rationing, long waiting lines and other things. If that's the case, the public option will die.
If the Democrats would grow a set, they would purpose raising taxes on the rich.
You guys say government insurance will lead to rationing, long waiting lines and other things. If that's the case, the public option will die.
Why are you proposing taxing them to give it to others who are not "rich"?
Shouldn't those who cannot provide for themselves be down to food, shelter and water before you take from others to give to them?
Whether you agree with Iraq or not, it is funding our military which is for the common defense of our country... and uhm, beside that, your people keep voting to fund the war. I suggest you talk to your Representatives in the House and Senate. :-)
The other is simply a forced transfer of personal property of one person for the sole purpose of giving it to another.
And please, Obama NEVER went as high as $350k in his "rich" definitions.
Since when did we need to defend ourseleves from Iraq?
So why not spread the pain around to everyone? Larger pool, lower premiums. And give everyone the ability to see a doctor when their problems are not worthy of an ER visit. This also reduces costs in the long run (ER visits are the most expensive kind of care.) End result, premiums drop more.
But continue your short-sighted ways. It worked for us in Iraq.
-They can afford it.
-No. We have a lot of expenses and they have to be paid for somehow. We take from the people who can afford it.
My point on lowering costs was that it needs to happen in healthcare, whether we have a public option or not.
I think the proper solution is to pay everyone a living wage but conservatives are against that.
Government coverage. Medicare? Far more efficient than private insurance companies. (Private: 30%-ish overhead. Medicare? 6-8%.) BIG SAVINGS.
Insure everyone so that they start visiting the doctor more regularly. This helps them stay healthier longer, thereby reducing the desperate late night ER visits that they can't pay for. (And when they can't pay for it because they don't have insurance, we all end up paying for that most expensive treatment.) So, by insuring everyone and encouraging them to use their insurance wisely, costs go down.
There's also all that other stuff, like making our businesses more competitive in a world market where competitors' workers all have health care that isn't added into the cost of everything those workers make. Or keeping workers healthy, reducing costs in the workplace. Little details like that.
But it's just easier to say "cut costs" and pretend that's the solution, when it just causes more problems.
Face it, you need the rich otherwise you have nobody to aim your arrows, and then your argument becomes obsolete.
I never have a problem paying my taxes, and I'm not in a lower bracket. If/when I get into a higher bracket, I still won't have a problem paying into a progressive tax system that increases my tax rate the more I make.
It's called paying your fair share, which I realize is a foreign concept to most "conservatives". Anything less is utterly unpatriotic. Like Haliburton moving their headquarters to Dubai where they can enjoy all the benefits of doing business in America without having to pay their fair share of taxes for that privilege like everyone else, or that is to say, everyone else that pays their fair share of taxes.
Well it's a good thing you do, because half of Barry's cabinet can't find their way to pay theirs! What are we up to now? Six or Seven TAX CHEATS?
No one is going away. We have the consumers. Business will always want a piece of them. We just need to be smarter about taxing coporations who are not US corporations more to do business here. There is a building in the Caribbean that houses over 100,000 companies who are actually American companies using a tax shelter to shirk their duty as a citizen to pay taxes. We should be going after these people. They are certainly not paying their fair share. The top tax rate in this country does not pay nearly enough in taxes.
For argument's sake though. How much do think is fair to take from the rich? 50%? 80%? 90%?
Where do you think money comes from to fund start up companies? Where would you get the money to invest in businesses that create jobs?
Rich people don't put money in their mattresses, they either invest it or spend it. When they do invest or spend, it goes back into business and indirectly, into paychecks for people like you and me. Take away the ability to invest by confiscating income of the rich, and the whole economy suffers.
Also, the wealth in this country was more evenly spread before Reagan's war on the middle class. Now we have massive inequality.
If you keep investing money into your business, you'll pay less taxes.
Again, our economy grew when he had tax rates of 70 to 90 percent so your last part is bunk.
Peddle your income redistribution nonsense and steal from those who have and give to those who don't, elsewhere. It's a formula for disaster.
NO taxes are NOT theft. No more than the electric company wanting money for their service is theft. Taxes are the price we pay to have a society. If you dont LIKE it. Go away. Go live in the forest and eat nuts and berries, dig a hole and sleep in it. We are trying to have a society here and dragging you Ebenezer Scrooge worshippers along kicking, screaming and snivelling MINE, MINE, all day is tedious. Society makes a huge investment in everyones ability to make their money and and that cost needs to be paid back.
Taxes arent theft. If you dont want to pay your fair share to be part of our society GET OUT. Listening to you selfish cons WAS a disaster as the shape of the economy shows. We have moved on. We can certainly do without YOU. So if you want to snivel that paying your share is theft. Get lost and let the adults fix the mess people like you have left us in
And the paying your fair share argument, that is so tired. Do a little research and see who pays the wide majority of taxes in this country.
So you can keep going after people with money to pay for your programs, see how far that gets you when the well runs dry and there is no more. Then who are you going to call the evil rich, yep, those who aren't rich, but getting by, then you go after their money, and then what?
You're not fooling anyone with your "just the rich" baloney, when that is unsustainable the taxes will have to come from somewhere to fund the dependent society you dream of. Wow, nice place ya got there.
Cons are greedy selfish goons who want to get rid of all taxation, ya right?
Guess you didn't get invited to one of those tea parties, huh?
Oh, I thought you liberals like to tax based on what you think is enough. Isn't $100,000 a year enough? Seems like it to me. No, you aren't very bright.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<
See right there you started off with a lie. You didnt think. You never think. You regurgitate what you are TOLD. You dont have the requisite equipment to think.
you liberals like to tax based on what you think is enough. Isn't $100,000 a year enough? Seems like it to me
<<<<<<<<<<<<<>
So am I supposed to give an answer based on this delusional fantasy of what you WISH liberals thought? You make things up in your head that serve no purpose but to denigrate liberals with no connection whatsoever to reality and call it an argument? Its about like me saying You conservatives like to starve children and start wars to kill the poor so lets frame the discussion based on THAT. I mean it seems like it to ME.
No, you aren't very bright.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
I might not be the brightest crayon in the box but compared to YOU I am Stephen Hawking
RightOn that is not really how you think a progressive tax system works do you? I guess maybe we have all been missing the point. You guys need a basic explanation of how a progressive tax works. You guys seem to think it would actually punish you for making more money.
You tell me. So many of the start-up job offers I see offer me no pay in exchange for equity. Seems to me, much of that start-up cost is born by workers.
If we went single-payer, the insurance industry's profits are cut completely out of the equation saving those costs up front. Additionally, privater insurance's administrative costs are far higher percentage-wise than Medicare, which is a government-run health care plan.
So how would it be paid for? Simple: increase taxes. The amount that your taxes would go up to support single-payer would be less than you would save by not having to pay for the exorbitant profit and administrative costs of the for-profit insurance industry. In other words, you wouldn't have to pay more in taxes than you'd save by not having to pay insurance premiums.
This puts the emphasis back on preventative medicine over profits (people won't put off going to the doctor when they need to for fear of the cost) and it puts the decision regarding your care back into the hands of your doctor and takes it out of the hands of greedy insurance companies looking to cut your expensive care off if they can find an "i" you didn't dot or a "t" you didn't cross on a medical form 20 years ago. They have entire "fraud investigation" departments that do nothing but this, which is one of the reasons why their administrative costs are so high.
I think it's funny that you think you have good health care. It may be good now, but get sick with something expensive to treat and you may find yourself out on the proverbial street because the insurance company conducted an automatic "fraud" investigation based on your illness and found that your doctor made a note in your file once 20 years ago that he didn't tell you about and they consider that to be withholding information about a preexisting condition. This really happened to someone and people are cut off every day for stupid reasons like this, all in the name of the bottom line.
See this video.
So now you've got a serious illness and are uninsured and uninsurable. What do you do? You've now got a preexisting condition and won't be able to get insurance. So you're on the hook for every cent of your expensive care.
This is business as usual for the insurance industry, are you ok with this? Or are you only ok with this as long as it doesn't happen to you?
Still think you have "good" coverage? It may well seem good now, but will it still be good when you really need it? Is that a chance you're willing to take?
THAT is the problem that single-payer, or at least a robust Medicare-like public option will resolve.
Of course you haven't been convinced. Then again, how hard have you tried to look for evidence to disprove your assumption? Or have you mostly just listened to Rush or Sean or read right wing talking points to confirm your unconvincedness?
The Kaiser Foundation in 2007 published data from OECD countries about health care costs. The US spent $5400/person while every other country spent less.
If your concern isn't just cost, you may want to get better health care in order to live longer, so...? Those other countries? They get the same health outcomes (some diseases better, some worse) and live just as long, in some cases they live longer under nationalized health care.
You aren't convinced that government health care isn't good? How about the VA which was rated as delivering the best health care in the country.
Then again, you don't want single payer here in the United States? Why are you opposed to Medicare?
Not convinced? You 're just too lazy to look for information. Any information. You seem content to spout talking points and listen to Mark Steyn talk about the enervating effects of government healthcare. AND doing it without a touch of irony because he, like his mentor RushSeanBillO, he knows guys like you are so busy nodding your heads, your brains are addled. Whenever a radio dude or dudette says sometning so inane, just repeat: Medicare!
Nice rant.
How much does an insurance company have to make for them to be making "obscene profits"? Do you have any link showing they actually make "obscene profits"?
These companies aren't selling widgets.
Do you think all insurance companies pay eight figure salaries? I think I read that there are over 3,000 health/accident insurance companies in the U.S. Do you think they provide competition for each other?
And I would say we should be looking to turn these health insurance cartels into non-profits. We need to get rid of the profit motive.
Who charges the "costs"??
Sorry, but the big big problems are the pharmas and the providers, not the insurers.
Obviously you have no idea why medical costs are increasing.
$500 to $700 billion could be cut from health care costs by eliminating unnecessary tests.
20 percent of patients account for 80 percent of spending, and that 20 percent is made up mostly of the chronically ill.
http://www.aarpmagazine.org/health/health_care_costs.html
Since you saw it on HuffPo it obviously won't work. ;-)
Solon, I salute you for pointing this out so action can be taken. ;-)
I wonder if he has license plates that say "Assman". ;-0)
Now the health care issue has been rectally examined by the Right, and the conclusion is: keep pumping their manure into the septic tank.
These are total compensation packages, so maybe it's unfair to categorize them as "salaries". Only two break the eight-figure barrier.
Still, how many claims have to be refused to pay these people the extra millions? Reduce one person's salary by 5 million, and how many life-saving operations could you then pay for? Twenty? Thirty? A hundred? Would it be worth the extra house in the Hamptons to save a few lives? Would they be willing to settle for a yacht that's ten feet shorter?
Please don't include things like experimental treatments, treatments that have little chance of succeeding, redundant treatments, etc in your "extra millions" figure. If you think a state-run health insurance system will be paying for that sort of stuff, you're dreaming.
Then you haven't solved the problem. Who will cover those people? Or, do they simply fall between your Social Darwinist cracks, and to hell with them?
We weren't talking about them though, your post mentioned those who had insurance but were denied coverage in a shady way.
I doubt that CEO compensation is dependent on refusing people claims.
I am no fan of insurance companies, I appreciate you finding the answer to my question.
What I gather is that you are for insurance companies rationing care.
And you can use the google to answer your own questions.
Most states requirer health insurers to be localized in the state theat they provide coverage.
For Example: BlueCross/Blue Shield has 65 different companies in 52 states/provinces and they continue to consolidate buy purchasing smaller insurance companies.
Wellpoint is this nation's largest health insurer and they were fined for delaying payments to hospital... again, another gimmick to increase profits by denying hospitals and doctors the money they need.
It is commonly known that the top specialists in this country refuse to take insurance. Patients must figure out the reimbursement on their own. What does that say about our health care system. We have the best doctors in the world, but only the priveledged few can see them.
http://www.manta.com/mb_34_A2141_000/accident_and_health_insurance
I'm not defending Wealthpoint. The statement I was questioning regarded CEO compensation.
Can you support your "commonly known" statement? Who and/or how many would be a good start.
For example, I work in commercial insurance, and every one of the top-10 most financially secure insurers in the commercial market would be able to cut their rates 2% across the board if New York State would stop requiring ALL insurance providers to be hq'd in New York (each company is forced to establish a separate entity).
some unsolicited advice.
Responding to AA is the perfect example in falling for trolls. I occasionally do it when I want to throw my thoughts into vacuum.
Please do not take my word for it. Browse through this site for his thoughtful responses and hit and run posts.
You will find more (lot more) of the latter.
Thanks for the laugh.
Happy laughing :)
Maybe you're using a different definition for "hypocrisy" or "troll" than the rest of the civilized world. And "juvenile" as well, of course.
Maybe you haven't seen this video but if you have and you're not totally outraged, you must work for the insurance industry.
There is evidence in employee reviews that these are their objectives. And when 3 insurance CEOs went before congress last week and were asked if they would stop "rescission" all three said no.
For them to say that, says to me, that this is how they make their profit. That is like the Fire Department being more profitabale if they would not put some houses on fire because it would cost them too much to do so.
Are you not concerned at all that, if everyone moves over to the public option and we are essentially on single-payer, that healthcare will be come rationed or denied based on bureaucratic projections? Are you not worried about indirect effects (banning smoking, alcohol, all junk food, birth regulation, etc?)
I'm actually worried about your answer, now that I think about it.
What can the public do about it when they don't have a choice?
Before I post the answers, how much profit do you think is obscene? How high does a compensation package have to be before you consider it to be obscene?
As an aside, I didn't have a job right out of law school and had to find my own insurance until I was employed. I have had a lot of health problems, but nothing rising to the point of a terminal disease. Among them are two knees that are awful, jaw problems, etc. I was able to find private insurance with one caveat. Since I had gone in for treatment in the last few years for all of my joint issues and the others, NONE of the health insurance companies would give me coverage for those issues! NONE. The only insurance option, which was more expensive, was through the state, but it covered what I needed covered. The private sector plans? Health insurance for healthy people.
I don't think of profit as obscene. Profits are necessary in capitalism and are considered the wealth that is created by bringing innovation and cost effective solutions to market.
I do believe that much of the top compensation in many areas has gone beyond reasonable. However I am only looking at it as an outsider and the total dollar amount. However as a percentage of the total dollars earned by these companies, CEO compensation is usually a very small amount. While I would like to see these issues addressed, I think overall it distracts from the greater problems that cause unaffordable insurance.
I understand your plight with your own insurance coverage and you make a good point. I have no argument against insurance reform, my issue is with the government getting into the insurance business. If you haven't heard, medicare is going broke and so is social security. Government promises too much and has funded trillions and trillions of unfunded obligations already. Adding more underfunded programs will not solve the problem.
And, as for "coddling them or their talking points"... they've been doing that for Republicans for years.
I'm talking about journalists doing their jobs; polls show that most people favor a public option, yet the spineless politicians are caving into the corporate propaganda.
Now ask me if I think opponents of gay marriage should be banned from the public discourse. That was the topic at hand here. Should the health care debate be fought only in fringe territory, or should it include views left of center as well?
Allowing the masses to take a vote on whether or not a minority group can get married based on arbitrary reasons is a classic example of mob rule; it's unconstitutional.
Creating a public option in the health care system because polls indicate widespread support is not. Apples and oranges.
Sawyer does not have her own show and can't cater to an audience who thinks like her, unlike KO and Rachel - not dissing them (I watch KO) but they have the luxury of pushing their ideology.
Instead of trying to counter the b.s., honest questions should be asked. What are the costs going to be? How will a public option work and how will people apply for it? How will it be funded, etc. We don't need a bunch of pre=packaged, loaded questions.
----------------------Note to John King of CNN---------------
Hi John,
I found the tone of the discussion on the Public Insurance Option quite disturbing. Apart from Bob Casey, you kind of nudged every body in an anti-PO direction. You might have meant your questions as provoking; but they did not raise both sides of the equation. The Republicans just lapped it up, though not quite as readily as Cantor, Pence, Boehner et al would have. Bob Casey did defend his side, but being a non-confrontative fellow he could not match you and the trio. He could have used a balanced ear, or you should have invited a more aggressive partisan. In any case some of the points that did not come up at all are described in what follows. Hope you find it useful.
On the Health Care issue of a Public Plan Option (PO) some facts are often overlooked. Some GOP & Effete Dems have been standing behind a bunch of strawmen of their own creation. They are a hidebound bunch of people part of the "let us oppose whatever Obama says" campaign.
I hope you will if this message comes to your attention, either consider the next note or set me straight in a direct message to me.
==============================================================
Ins lobby says "Public Option hurts Free Mkt". Nothing Free Mkt about Ins Oligarchy sanctioned by Gov to loot Captive Customers. Current state does not permit meaningful choice. If the Gov run option is inefficient & less patient friendly, it should be easy to compete with it. The reason the Oligarchs are trying to scare the public is to preserve their Gov protection.
"Expensive PO will bust the Budget". PO should run on a "break even" basis without any government subsidies. The only cost should be to cover the uninsured. This should be the same with or without PO. If GOP/Effete-Dems do not want to cover the uninsured, they should stand up and say so, instead of using false arguments to scare the public. Spreading fear has become the MO of this coalition - from NIMBY to PO.
Health CoOps are Red Herring. Organizing Health CoOp harder than Food CoOp. No good Doc will sign up with fledgling CoOp. No negotiating power. Harmless and toothless option designed to please the Lobby.Ins lobby says "Public Option hurts Free Mkt". Nothing Free Mkt about Ins Oligarchy sanctioned by Gov to loot Captive Customers. Current state does not permit meaningful choice. If the Gov run option is inefficient & less patient friendly, it should be easy to compete with it. The reason the Oligarchs are trying to scare the public is to preserve their Gov protection.
How very disappointing to see MMA adopt the wingnut framing that only "progressives" support single-payer or public option.
Au contraire.
Such a frame is just the sort of "conservative misinformation" I thought MMA existed to expose!
Sheesh!
The proper label for the American economy is the survival first arbitrary economic system. Whatever works to support the corporate elite is the economic plan. The corporate elite are the third political party, and can also be labeled "the silent coup." The "silent coup" is the effort to overthrow the American economic and political systems to benefit corporations. This effort is anti-American and treasonous.
Most politicians accept the overthrow as their political reality and operate from that perspective. Sadly, journalists also accept the anti-American treasonous perspective. They label themselves as realists rather than the cowards that they are. The submission of many sectors of the economy is due to a similar acceptance of the overthrow, believing that it is the "natural" progression of economic development.
It is also more rewarding financially to serve the corporate agenda; otherwise the competent propagandists in the media would only be employed as the janitors in the buildings where they commit crimes against the American people.
The fake worry the republicans display about the takeover of health care by "Washington bureaucrats" ignores the fact that care is already "managed" by big business. A method of management labeled "utility management" examines corporate procedures for efficiency and efficiency is defined as the lowest possible cost, not the best possible care. "Best possible care" has two definitions. It is either the most expensive care money can buy for those who can afford it, or the least expensive care for those who cannot afford it.
Why would anyone trust the current health care industry when it is the group that created the mess health care is in the U.S.?
Our current system is the most expensive in the world, yet is 39th in health care delivery to patients. This is not a mistake, it is deliberate. It is the natural result of allowing the health care industry to regulate itself under the philosophy of serving self-interest before any other consideration. It is not a community based philosophy; it is a "what's in it for me" philosophy that has corrupted our health care, political, judicial, and military, law enforcement, and media institutions, under the camouflage of being realists.
If Congress wants to remain credible they should think of better lies to offer, ones that don't insult the intelligence!!! What better way to offer the "competition" that they claim to want, than to offer a single-payer plan! As for the blathering heads - they are firmly ensconced in the party of NO! NO TO THE PEOPLE, NO TO A PUBLIC PLAN, & OKAY TO SQUEEZING EVERY DIME THEY CAN GET OUT OF THE AVERAGE AMERICAN IN THEIR QUEST TO STAY IN POWER!!!