Drudge, Fox Nation mischaracterize Obama remarks as supporting end to private health insurance
On August 3, the Drudge Report and the Fox Nation linked to a YouTube video with the headlines, "Uncovered Video: Obama Explains How His Health Care Plan Will 'Eliminate' Private Insurance" and "2007 Video! Did Obama Say He Wants to Kill Private Insurance?," respectively. However, the video clip cropped Obama's comments and mischaracterized them: Obama was not discussing the elimination of private insurance, but rather how health insurance could transition from a system of primarily "employer coverage" to a "much more portable system."
Drudge, Fox Nation echo YouTube poster's claim that in clip, Obama is "saying His Health Care Plan Will ELIMINATE Private Insurance"
From the Drudge Report on August 3:
From FoxNation.com on August 3:
Posted video shows Obama was not discussing elimination of "private insurance" in general
Video mischaracterized footage of Obama discussing insurance options beyond employer-based coverage. While the video clip is posted on YouTube under the headline, "SHOCK UNCOVERED: Obama IN HIS OWN WORDS saying His Health Care Plan will ELIMINATE private insurance," Obama does not discuss the elimination of private insurance during the clip. Rather, in the footage, taken from a 2007 forum on health care, Obama discusses how the health insurance system could transition away from a system of primarily "employer coverage." In the video clip, Obama states, "I would hope that we could set up a system that allows those who can go through their employer to access a federal system or a state pool of some sort. ... But I don't think we're going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately."
From the video, posted on YouTube by the conservative video news site NakedEmperorNews.com:
OBAMA: My commitment is to make sure that we've got universal health care for all Americans by the end of my first term as president.
[...]
OBAMA: I would hope that we could set up a system that allows those who can go through their employer to access a federal system or a state pool of some sort.
ON-SCREEN TEXT: OBAMA admitting his plan will ELIMINATE private insurance (over time)
OBAMA: But I don't think we're going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There's going to be potentially some transition process. I can envision a decade out or 15 years out or 20 years out.
Video crops Obama comments to suggest employer coverage would be "eliminated" by his plan
Contrary to cropped video, Obama did not suggest "employer coverage" would be "eliminate[d]" in 10 to 20 years. Obama stated: "But I don't think we're going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There's going to be potentially some transition process. I can envision a decade out or 15 years out or 20 years out where we've got a much more portable system" [cropped comments in italics].
Obama stated during forum that under his plan, employers "still have the option of providing coverage." Following the remarks included in the YouTube video, Obama stated that under that "much more portable system": Employers still have the option of providing coverage, but many people may find that they get better coverage, or at least coverage that gives them more for health care dollars than they spend outside of their employer. And I think we've got to facilitate that and let individuals make that choice to transition out of employer coverage."
Later in forum, Obama stated that under his plan, pooling options would exist "in addition to the employer based system." Obama stated: "[O]ne thing that I think is important is to recognize that there are a lot of small employers who would like to get health care for their workers but they themselves can't afford it because they don't have access to large enough pools to allow them to save money. That's why I think it's going to be important for us in whatever system that we set up to make sure that in addition to the employer based system that we've got an alternative system that individuals who aren't getting it through the job can access."
From the March 24, 2007, health care forum (portions aired in the video in bold):
OBAMA: As I indicated before, I think that we're going to have to have some system where people can buy into a larger pool. Right now their pool typically is the employer, but there are other ways of doing it. I would like to -- I would hope that we could set up a system that allows those who can go through their employer to access a federal system or a state pool of some sort. But I don't think we're going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There's going to be potentially some transition process. I can envision a decade out or 15 years out or 20 years out where we've got a much more portable system. Employers still have the option of providing coverage, but many people may find that they get better coverage, or at least coverage that gives them more for health care dollars than they spend outside of their employer. And I think we've got to facilitate that and let individuals make that choice to transition out of employer coverage.
[...]
OBAMA: And one thing that I think is important is to recognize that there are a lot of small employers who would like to get health care for their workers but they themselves can't afford it because they don't have access to large enough pools to allow them to save money. That's why I think it's going to be important for us in whatever system that we set up to make sure that in addition to the employer based system that we've got an alternative system that individuals who aren't getting it through the job can access. Now, I just have to repeat something I said earlier. And I'm absolutely convinced of this. The most important challenge for us is to build a political consensus around the need to solve this problem.
And stick to the facts, please.
On barackobama.com, it states, "Reality: Obama Has Consistently Said That If We Were Starting From Scratch, He Would Support A Single Payer System, But Now We Need To Build On The System We Have"
That proves his intent. He would in fact prefer a single payer system. That **should** remove any mischaracterization portrayed in this article. But of course, for some progressive bloggers that is not enough.
Dr. Quentin Young, who worked with then Senator Obama on healthcare reform in 1995, said, "Single-payer makes sense, and Obama used to believe that, too."
In the video referenced in the article, Obama himself admits he is a proponent, but then softens his position to acknowledge that it would be difficult to ***transition***, but nothing about the loss of the private option.
So, it seems that Obama, by his own words, is a proponent of a single payer system, and it is hard to believe that a healthcare plan designed with this philosophy would protect the private option.
Absent that tabula rasa, however, he does recognize that the current health coverage system is in poor shape, in that it is economically unfeasible. No other industry doubles costs every ten years and survives. In order to bring costs down, he is proposing a public option. Could he front the money for nonprofit corporations to start their own health insurance organizations? Of course. However, by creating a public option, run as a government program, at least ONE insurance organization will be forced to answer to the public, by way of our election process.
Currently, insurance companies answer to shareholders who wish to make money. The best way to do that is to take policy holder premiums, and then NOT pay on claims, or, simply cancel the policy should something catastrophic happen. That's a heckuva way to run a railroad, but it's no way to care for sick people.
Social Security only has IOU's in it's coffers
Medicaid is broke
How could it possibly be good ????
Duh
Duh.
TAX THE ALMOST RICH. DUH.
Then what?
TAX THE ALMOST ALMOST RICH. DUH.
Then what?
Right on what is your point? Do you understand the concept of hypothetical. Obama said if we could start fresh, he would choose single payer. The fact is we can;t do it over and we will never have single payer. It is a dead issue. That is like saying "If I could start over I would be an idiot conservative".
Raise taxes. I love my fellow citizens enough to pitch in a little more if it means we all rise together out of the disgraceful profitized death care system we have today.
I care because I have that fundamental American principle of empathy written in my heart. It is empathy that moved the fathers of our country to enshrine, in our founding documents, freedom and fairness for all, not just the powerful.
Not only does the right have no answers, they have faith only in the efficacy of a hardline profit first, you're on your own, society. That is not what our county is about. It was all of us together who beat the nazis. It was all of us together, helping each other, that helped us get through the Great Depression until we finally got the nation back to work building infrastructure.
This nation is rooted in equality. The current healthcare system is the portrait of the kind of elitist system we left behind at the birth of our nation.
Yeah, you are.
I do not see ANYTHING about single payer there.
But if you look hard enough, listen with your tin hat on and your birther mentality, I guess you can hear or see anything you like.
Out of curiosity, since you are so flawless at parsing a President's statements, what did Bush II mean when he called the U.S. Constitution "just a (expletive deleted) piece of paper!" Or, when he said "It would be so much easier if I were a dictator."
If you have to FAKE stories to this extent, you HATE THE GUY.
But I guess their future careers as "strategists" and "consultants" with the insurance and drug industry would be screwed, so they won't ever do it of course. Why put people and political achievements ahead of profit? That's just unamerican.
Did anyone happen to see the story by John Stossel on ABC's 20/20 this past Friday? It portrayed a very different story than many progressives sing. It showed long lines in Canada, doctor lotteries, denied treatment, and people who specialize in taking patients over the border to get US treatment.
Or, go to google and search NHS (UK's socialized healthcare director) and healthcare.
But, the key to conservatives view is the fact that competition drives innovation. A little bit of greed drives people to make things better, faster, cheaper.
Medicare does not have this. It is in fact socialized healthcare in the US. And how is it doing? The WSJ (May 9th, 2009) projects a $24.2 TRILLION (yes TRILLION) deficit over a 75-year projection. Not billions, but TRILLIONS! And, we want to expand this program?
That, along with the fact that single-payer healthcare is another step toward communism and away from personal liberty, is a main reason Conservatives oppose this and any plan like it.
The only innovation being done by the private health insurance industry is in finding new and better way to deny coverage to their suckers--I mean customers--and inflate their CEOs' salaries. Of course, being a conservative you don't see anythi9ng wrong with that, do you?...
(new bumper sticker on jstephens car)
Better and faster? Maybe in some areas, but CHEAPER??? IN YOUR DREAMS. Competition has completely and utterly failed to control costs.
Competition is patriotic, Pete. So is choice. You can choose to go unemployed or you can work for dirt wages. Come on. Get with it man.
Go watch Stossels report and google his guests. They all come from "Right Wing" "think tanks". Do you think they have an agenda. The Woman states that 4% of our drugs come from the Gov. Where do you think our experimental procedures come from. Do you think the work on transplants and other non drug cures are coming from the private sector?
Stossel starts by saying that the Gov. can kill innovation. Last time I checked the US Military was Gov. run and was pretty technically advanced. Bush began privatizing parts of our military(Blackwater and KBR) and look what happened.
"But, the key to conservatives view is the fact that competition drives innovation." Right, and making for-profit companies compete against a non-profit public option should bring prices down, which is better for everybody, right?
I appreciate that the WSJ is projecting a $24.2. trillion deficit 75 years out. We can't predict the weather accurately 24 hours in advance, but a 75 year projection is -totally- believable.
Let's look back 75 years, shall we? That would be 1934. Hemp was still legal, and on the verge of being described as the new billion dollar industry by Popular Mechanics. In 1934, we were still in the depths of the Great Depression. World War II had not yet been fought, and the Civil War had not yet been paid for. Traveling across the Atlantic by airplane was still a great way to get your name in the papers. One digital watch contains more computer power than existed on the entire Earth in 1934. I'll take the WSJ projection with a grain of salt.
If a group of people (say, the employees of a company) gather together to barter collectively for a health insurance policy, that's collectivism, which inspired communist and socialist thought in the 19th and 20th centuries. Are you opposed to this as well? Every man, woman, and child for themselves?
It is also worth mentioning that Spain and Italy are ranked as having both socialized medicine and a better standard of health care than we do in the U.S.
I have private insurance through my excellent employer. But I would cheerfully p!ss on HealthNet's grave if it meant a real single-payer system. If only our president and congress had the guts.
Also, Barney Frank is with you on the Single Payer.
RWNJ, if you are smoking, and under the public option, your premiums will simply go up, because you are engaging in risky behavior that has been proven to be linked with higher health care costs. The same goes if you are overweight. Want to bring your premiums down? Then live healthier. Remember, though: it's YOUR choice. That -was- what you wanted, right? The choice to live your life as you see fit? No one is taking that away, but you will be required to help pay for it.
Would prohibition work for tobacco? Nope. Keep it legal and tax it almost out of business. Much more effective, and you get tax revenue as well. Of course, prohibition as a general policy is completely flawed, but that is another topic for another day.
Yes! Exactly!! I understand and take the responsibility for my actions via higher premiums! Just like I chose to get an education so that I could get a job so that I can afford to pay for health care for my family that is provided by a company I chose among available options. Options = competition and competition is good.
...so what to do with those who cannot afford insurance... are there any systems in place currently that could provide pro bono insurance on the (preferably) state or federal level? Are there any charitable organizations who have a mission to help people obtain health insurance? What regulations should we relax in order to make care more affordable? We are an entrepreneurial nation and I know we can come up with something better than the default government healthcare.
In effect, you will pay in all your life, and not recieve benefits when you need them because of government (or private insurance company) rationing. The real reason is because your health has been redistributed to sick people.
What single payer does is redistribute health. Think about that. Healthy people pay money so young sick people can get better but when the healthy old people need help they don't get it.
Take the private insurance companies and government out of the picture and you get a health plan that is solvent (something HR3200 is decidedly not) and drives down health care costs.
Vote NO on HR3200. It's not reform, it's simply a bad law.
It was through the early 20th century quite common for senior citizens to live out their days in abject poverty. Now it is quite rare. Social Security is a great success. So naturally the right is desperate to destroy it.
At least you acknowledge that private insurance companies ration care, and quite ruthlessly, too. The government, however, will not need to guarantee a hefty profit margin to keep stockholders happy and lavish bonuses on CEOs.
Then why are 92% of Canadians happy with their single-payer health coverage?
How can I say this politely - I don't believe you. And it sounds to me like you've been drinking the Ron Paul Kool-Aid pretty heavily. I don't believe him, either.
Well, it's not single-payer coverage. But if it includes a public option, there's hope we may eventually get there. And it beats the snot out of mystical The Invisible Hand Of The Market Which Has Always Fisted Us Before Will Suddenly Make Everything Wonderful BS that the right-wing ideologues and the corporate brigands they serve would foist on us.
pay as you go.
Our HR3200 future means we will pay in all our lives and if we are healthy and get to 80 we can then depend on the government for nothing at that age. Actually the age might be somewhat younger by then because there won't be enough people to pay into the plan -- just like SS. For most people, if they pay into a health plan all their lives and use it sparingly, then, at 75 need a hip replacement but cannot get it, they would be very angry. Even liberals will be very upset when that happens -- and it will happen. You and I both know there will be that person, who applies for hip replacement to the government one day late. That will be the subject of many news broadcasts. No one will like that not even George Soros.
SS is so bad that your rate of return over your life time is about 1%. If you die before you start collecting you lose it all. If you are black, your rate of return is negative -- on average you don't get back what you put in.
As for other countries, they all seem to come here for medical care when it comes to fancy diseases and illnesses. In fact we have higher survivor rates for cancer than most other countries. We have also invented 80% of the miracle drugs appearing over the past 50 years. That might not justify 2x cost of medical care compared to the rest of the world, but it might justify more than a 1x cost compared to the rest of the world.
I hadn't heard the 92% of Canadians number. Where did you find that? I have heard that 80% of American are happy with their health plans. I also heard that Canadians have lotteries to get a doctor in some places and months long waiting lists for hospital procedures. Here, if one hostpital can't get you in, you go to another. I also have the government report showing Canada has fewer doctors per 1000 people than any country in Europe and fewer than in the US (2.2 doctors/1000 people in Canada).
Our system is far from perfect but no one in Congress wants to identify the list of problems that should be solved. Obama makes his wish list known, but it is very naive. For instance, "No annual or lifetime caps on coverage" -- that suggests there is an infinite supply of money to cover anything. We all know that's simply not true and even Obama has equivocated on rationing for old people. Three of his points can be covered with a simple statement: "All Americans must be covered." Make that an edict to insurance companies with a suitable inducement and a lot of the problems about Health care go away. That would leave the only real problem -- cost. HR3200 doesn't address cost. HR3200 does micromanage home visitation, though. I bet we are all relieved that is in the bill.
I looked at one blogger and she mentioned she had to pay $22,000 for child birth services AND she had insurance. Her concern was that the insurance, whether government or private should have covered it.
I disagree. Her first question should have been $22,000 for
a childbirth? How did the bill get so high and that wasn't even the part that insurance paid. There is no economic model
that could allow every women in the country to have 2 or more $22,000 childbirths for free or for the 10 to 15% of salary collected by the Health care tax. Health care costs need to go down.
Insurance is not a way to make costs go down. You are asking for a rather large new bureaucracy to manage insurance. I'm guessing, but a full single payer system probably would have as many people in it as the IRS. (IRS has about 90,000; SSA has about 62,000 + 15,000 contractors). You also think the government will do it cheaper. My position is that insurance is a cost that provides no benefit. Eliminate as much of it as possible. HSA's eliminate a lot. That leaves only catastrophic medical issues to be covered by insurance.
HR3200 doesn't address cost. It is a bad law. Vote NO. Tell your representatives to Vote NO and to produce a real list of problems that their next attempt must address.
While here we get bankrupted when we get the run of the mill stuff. The rich and well-connected will continue to find ways to get themselves taken care of, I'm not worried about that.
While nevertheless managing somehow to have a lower life expectancy than the countries with the horrible socialized medicine we're supposed to be terrified of.
Well, given that 15% have no insurance at all that's absurd on its face. And I saw a right-wing troll on another blog today bragging that the number was up to 48%. I have private insurance. I guess I'm "satisfied" with it in the sense that it's better than not having it. But the propaganda we've been hearing about people loving their private insurance is just that, propaganda.
Have you been hearing that from Canadians? Somehow I doubt it.
Getting into a hospital isn't a problem. Avoiding getting ruined financially, even if you have insurance, is a big problem. You do realize that we are the only industrialized country where people go bankrupt as a result of medical bills, don't you?
And yet, as I've said, they somehow manage to live longer than we do.
And here we get the BIG right-wing talking point. How many ways does this have to get debunked?
That's Limbaugh's pet solution, isn't it? Clearly I gave you too much credit suggesting you were a Ron Paulite.
It's an improvement. Will junking it somehow magically bring us a better bill, or will it leave us with the status quo for another 15 years before anyone tries again, like last time?
That would be fine. Countries that have greater equality in wealth do better as functional, healthy societies because they all feel a closer bond to their countrymen as equals.
The wealthy have been getting a free ride for far too long. They may pay a larger chunk, collectively, of the nation's taxes, but as a percentage of income, I pay more than Bill Gates. That's just wrong.
I have a list, and you won't -believe- some of the names on it, of communists, highly placed communists in the State Department. I am a senator from Wisconsin, and I have been looking for people to help with a little committee I've formed to look into this very dangerous situation!
signed, Senator Joe McCarthy
"...strapping on your tinfoil hat."
There, I finished your sentence.
How can my employer provided insurance be "much more portable." Employers negotiate complex contracts with insurance companies that cover what percentage the employer pays and what percentage the employee pays for premiums and for the actual coverage such as copays and deductibles. So if I work for Company A and want to take my insurance to company B (BTW A has Aetna and B has BC/BS), because it's better and cheaper than B offers, is B gonna wanna pay for that more expensive insurance? Or maybe the other employee's will want the same coverage I have? The ONLY way it works is for the government to mandate that all insurance be the same coverage and cost. Whats the point of having "options", if there really isn't any. Well, there actually would be another way. Single payer, government run system. It's essentially the same.
I particulary like the part about how employer would still "have the option" of providing coverage. Really? Well, if I own a business and currently I pay about 10% if of my employees salary to healthcare (thats what mine pays), and the government is only gonna charge me 8% if I don't provide coverage, It doesn't take a genius to figure out that's 2% more profit for my employer if they simply drop my private insurance and put me on the public plan. Not to mention the headache of providing the insurance in the first place. Then you wouldn't have to bother with negotiating a contract that would mean nothing if the insurance is portable and I hire someone with more expensive coverage. Again unless the government mandate equal coverage and cost or it's single payer system. Essentially the same either way.
What he is saying is very obvious to me. He know that in an established system he couldn't just come in and put all those insurance companies out of business over night, but instead it's gonna take "15 or 20 years." And as far as the "political consensus", that's just political speak for what he's said before. "I won, so the republicans better get used to it."
Boy that sounds an awful lot like Cheney/Bush from 2001-2006 regarding the Democrats! How's it feel to be on the receiving end of it, Herr Justjoe?...
It is the Democrats job now to carry a strong unified message (the blue dogs need to stop their nonsense and rejoin the majority). Now is the time to stand firm and silence the fear monger and the lies that the other side of the aisle is putting forth. This is not time for the school yard bully to prevail. It is time for the Republicans to take the cotton out of their ears and put it in their mouths. Obstructionism is not the way to put America on track. But if bipartisanism is impossible it is time for the Democrats to stand up and vote in the programs they believe will make the country better. After all that is what the majority is supposed to do and that is exactly what the Republicans did for most of the Bush Administration.
Health care is not something your employer is required to give you. It is a nice benefit that they happen to give you. And if they choose not to then that is their right.
You do not have a right to health care. Unless there is a Constitutional amendment otherwise there is no inalienable right health care.
Is our current system perfect, no. But that is for us to change without government interference. We are the consumers and therefore have the full power over the insurance companies because they need us for their money.
Health Care is not a right and is not something government should be getting involved in.
Oh, yeah - I remember now - IDIOT.
have the full power over the insurance companies because they need us for their money.
Utterly mind-blowing. Why do you love insurance company profits so much?
I have a couple of friends in the IT industry, and they have a code for this kind of problem: it's an I-D-10-T error. :)
What I said was true. They get their profit form us which gives us the power. Just because we seem to have forgotten how to utilize that power, instead opting for easier and often illegal use of government power, does not mean we do not have it.
When it interferes with health care decisions and raises costs.
There shouldn't be a profit motive in health care insurance. Period.
Did the public school system bring an end to the private school industry?
Profits Over People
When it comes time for someone to decide whether I get life-saving treatment or not, I really want that decision to be made on the basis of efficiency and profit margin by someone who gets bonuses for not paying out medical expenses.
That sounds like an awesome system.
And speaking of efficiency, we should probably start drafting private armies. And all those potholes you complain about...you can go fill those yourself. Get a Gilligan's Island bicycle to power your electric grid while you're at it.
Thank God someone else realizes how inefficient it is to have the government do stuff. Will you be my life partner?
That is what is going to happen with a public option. They will only have so much money and not everyone who needs it will get the transplant or life saving operation because the money isn't there to pay for it. The only way for them to give everyone the treatment they would need is to tax us more and get more money.
Inefficiency does not mean the government doesn't get things done it means it cost a hell of a lot more than they say it will. that it will be filled with so much bureaucracy people will be intimidated from ever trying to figure it out. I grew up with my on Social Security for disability and Medicare and know what she had to go through just to get the treatment she needed. A lot of people just gave up. It seemed she had to fight and fill in forms in triplicate just for an aspirin.
Government is inefficient and if you critically look at the services in your town/city, county, state, and federal level you will see it. The problem is government should be run like a business and it is run more like a well meaning charity. Instead of making sure you have money to cover your cost you just give away everything you have and expect donors (tax payers) to cough up more to cover the rest.
Veterans continued to rate the care they receive through the Department of Veterans Affairs health care system higher than other Americans rate private-sector health care for the sixth consecutive year, a new annual report on customer satisfaction reveals.
For VA Secretary R. James Nicholson, the news is affirmation of what he called "the greatest story never told," that the VA offers top-quality care for its patients.
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=14560
Note - the link is to the website of the DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.
But it is one of the arguments that pay-or-die proponents have been making. After all, what's all this dooms day talk of socialism about? Abolition of private insurance, of course.
Then, if you buy contaminated food, you'll get sick and die, and the company producing the contaminate food will eventually go out of business, and the market will correct itself. Okay? Of course, you'll be dead, but it's better than public option health care, or government standards for food handling, or the licensing of doctors, the building of public roads, on and on ad nauseum. Is this truly a picture of the country you want to live in? Caveat Emptor uber alles?
I'm serious. You need to read more.
Also, why don't you google Obama, Bomford, Australia, Kenya, Taitz, forgery, perjury, etc?
Well, I mean obviously I know why you don't, because you don't want the truth, you just want Biden as President and Clinton as Vice President. Makes sense to me, Clinton-lover.
So, here's at least one link to get you started.
http://washingtonindependent.com/53757/surprise-orly-taitz-still-lying-about-the-forged-kenyan-birth-certificate
Know how to destroy your own credibility? Open your mouth.
If Savage, Glenn Beck, Lou Dobbs ever had any credibility with rational people it was a long time ago. Nothing could destroy there credibility with the type of nut who still believes them.
We have laws on the books to keep private companies from becoming monopolies but none to keep government agencies from doing so. You only have to look to the European countries and Canada to see where this will lead. There is no way to compete with a publicly funded program since it is paid for with our taxes. They do not have to make a profit and there is no "measure" of how well or efficiently they spend our money like there is in the private sector.
Social Security was sold as "Social Insurance" when it was first proposed. In fact it was simply a thinly veiled wealth redistribution plan from the start, not insurance. Now President Obama and the Democratic Party leadership are now calling the Health Care Plan "Health Care Insurance" reform. It is not insurance. It is once again wealth redistribution which is clear since they all say they will pay for it by increasing taxes on the rich. However, that won't even pay for the initial costs much less the costs as the plan inevitably expands. And it will expand as it drives private insurance out of business.
Finally, where is the money to research new drugs and therapies going to come from in the future? The choice will be
1) go to Congress for more money to fund research (and of course the decision as to what research to fund will be a political one)
2) forgo needed health care for someone
3) forgo new research and development
Without profits to pay the billions it costs to develop new drugs and procedures, innovation will grind to a halt. Think this through before jumping on the bandwagon.
We already have Viagra and Cialis. What more innovation is needed?(except for maybe a baldness cure).
I'm going to start selling these bumper stickers because there seems to be a market for them:
PROFITS OVER PEOPLE
Know what? That bandwagon is virtually every major ally of the U.S. and first-world country on the planet.
Canada, U.K., Germany, France, Spain, Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland, Italy, Norway, Sweden, Finland...well, suffice it to say, pretty much every place worth living, and almost every US ally, has socialized medicine.
Add to your list above the drain of funding for research:
1) Money spent on lawsuits for denying coverage or selling crappy drugs (the U.S. gov't doesn't have to defend itself)
2) Money spent on advertising
3) Money paid out to shareholders
4) Money spent on lobbying
5) Money spent on corporate getaways to the Bahamas and Las Vegas
6) Golden parachutes
Why the need to defend it or deny it?
Oh, yeah, because they are one of the country's largest lobbies, gave you a ton of money to run for President, and control health care in the United States and would certainly have you eliminated if this were a John Grisham novel.
America: By the corporations, for the corporations, and of the corporations.
Guess you hate humanity and capitalism.
From what would be spent for medicare, medicaid and a single payor option(socialized medicine), each citizen or legal resident of the US could purchase coverage, use the power of free choice in finding what fits the individual, and watch the cost of care stablilize without the rationing of socialized medicine or limit on individual freedom. Personal savings could go into HSA's.
Government is not equipped to run much of anything efficently. They don't have to respond to the paying public because no other option for health care for the individual would exist.
I'd much rather have an insurance company fighting for my money than fighting to get care from a government bureaucrat.
"Government is not equipped to run much of anything efficently. "
Neither are insurance companies.
"I'd much rather have an insurance company fighting for my money than fighting to get care from a government bureaucrat. "
Insurance companies don't fight for your money. They take your money, then your health care provider fights the insurance company bureaucrats to get it, then sends you the bill if they're unsuccessful and have given up the fight. It's happened to me several times.
Government, socialized medicine has no such incentives except to cut costs by lowering payments to providers, ie doctors become lawyers, or rationing care, ie grandma gets her ticket punched instead of a heart bypass.
You have far too much faith in insurance companies.
As far as trusting government, how's that warrantless wiretaping going? We don't trust them on that, but you'll give your health care over to it!
You talk about vouchers, but without bringing down the individual cost of health coverage premiums, you are simply throwing good money after bad. This seems like very fiscally irresponsible policy to me.
If the government option is so bad, then people will fail to flock to it and very little money will end up being spent. Problem solved. The government -does- have to respond to the paying public, every other November. Don't be silly.
If you'd rather have private insurance, you'll be pleased to learn that YOU CAN KEEP IT. How many more times will you need to be told this before you understand it?
As far as the administration of my money via a voucher, again it is a simple option of moving the money where I see fit. That kind of response is immediate and gets attention. Why all the fuss about 'cash for clunkers'?...it allows people to exercise some free choice. What the government and politicians don't like is that people are choosing Honda and Toyota over Government Motors and Chrysler, the ones we own now.
Private industry will move quickly to meet a consumer demand for a product, much faster than government bureaucracy. Use our money there is more efficent, not chasing good after bad(?) and if it is the same amount of money and it stablilzes the costs for care, what is irresponsible in that?
Cash for clunkers is a temporary program, and not designed to last for even one year. I'm not seeing a very good connection there, to be honest. Besides which, you still have to be able to afford the car in the first place, which means making monthly payments. Your system of vouchers seems to be in the business of handing out still more government money to people, money used to pay the high prices that are currently destroying health care in this country.
I'm talking about competition to bring the costs -down-. I'm also more than willing to pay premiums on a monthly basis for my public option, and I think most people who support it are as well. Not looking for a handout, here, just a way to rein in costs.
I agree that private industry is more responsive to public demand that government is. Having said that, though, small business is far and away more responsive than huge corporations. People have wanted more fuel efficient cars since the 1970s, and in 1993 GM had the choice between the Hummer and the electric car. Which did they choose? Short term profits, of course. Shot themselves right in the foot, and brought one of the largest employers on the planet to the brink of bankruptcy. It was bad enough when it happened to a car company. Can you imagine if it had happened to a major health coverage provider. Or the disaster that was Enron? Sorry, health coverage is to important to be left entirely of the hands of business executives.
Vouchers without cost control is the definition of throwing good money after bad. The primary goal of health reform is bringing prices down. Forcing for profit health coverage companies to compete with a non profit option will certainly do that. Will it mean a little less money lining the pockets of already wealthy people? That's too bad.
"And how would single payer be bad for the country?
And stick to the facts, please."
OK, lets.
Read this and lets discuss it line by line.
http://www.lafferhealthcarereport.org/