Radio hosts use Kennedy's death to fearmonger on health care rationing
Conservative radio hosts Rush Limbaugh and Tom Marr have used Sen. Edward M. Kennedy's death to attack health care reform, baselessly suggesting that if reform passes, elderly cancer patients -- like Kennedy was -- will be "denied" treatments or their treatments will be "rationed." Limbaugh claimed that Kennedy "chose to exercise as many options as were available to him to prolong his life" and asserted that "to put his name on a health care bill that denies that to other people" is "hypocrisy."
Limbaugh: "To put his name on a health care bill that denies" care to others "is hypocrisy." On his radio show, Limbaugh stated:
LIMBAUGH: I think it would be a tremendous disservice to come up with a health care bill that we have now in the House and is floating around the Senate, the one that Obama's talking about, where the government is going to decide whether people like Ted Kennedy get to go through every aspect of survival that he did. Exercise their spirit. He had a spirit for life; he wanted to live. He did not want to die.
Now, Obama has said, well, we can't look at that, because costs -- looking at somebody's spirit and will to live -- well, Ted Kennedy's spirit was to live, and he chose to exercise as many options as were available to him to prolong his life. And to put his name on a health care bill that denies that to other people and say we're doing this in his memory is hypocrisy, and it would be insulting to his memory. [Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show, 8/26/09]
Limbaugh later stated: "I think it suffices to say that it would be hypocritical as it could be to put his name on a health care bill that forces things on people that he was not forcing on himself. I think it would be an insult to his memory."
Marr said under public option, a "bureaucrat" would have told Kennedy, "77, brain tumor, bye-bye." Guest-hosting The Lou Dobbs Show, Tom Marr stated that "the government option that is in there that the late Senator Kennedy supported would never allow you to get the Bentley health care that Senator Kennedy got provided to him by the people of the United States." He later added: "[T]he Senator used everything possible to fight for over a year, and he fought a gallant fight. That is going to be denied and rationed if they get away with this government-run option. Yes, there will be a bureaucrat saying 'No, 77, brain tumor, bye-bye.' " [United Stations Radio Networks' The Lou Dobbs Show, 8/26/09]
Anyway, what Kennedy really wanted was the same level of health care he received, for EVERYONE!
Something tells me Rush and his buddies aren't down with that.
Do you want to know what the Republicans would to do with health care? All you have to do to do is listen to the LIES that they tell about the Democrat's proposed reforms. These LIES reveal the way the Republcians and Conservatives think about health care - IOW: Ration it, don't cover the 'less productive' members of society, gut medicare, ban medicaid... Add that to what they're otherwise LOUD and OPEN about proclaiming they want: Banning all abortions, no end of life counseling, no health care for imigrants, no stem-cell research, no HPV Vaccine... And you've got to wonder why ANYONE is listening to these STUPID BASTARDS.
Obama's plans are imperfect, at worst. For the record, I've now had about three (or more?) conservatives, on this very board, look at MY plan and agree it would work. (And it's a VERY LIBERAL plan!) So I'm not just throwing stones - I've got some ideas. The Republican plan? The Conservative plan? WHAT PLAN?! Their plan is to make sure everyone fears change so much that no proposed plan will ever get a fair evaluation! THAT'S the only PLAN they have!
My 37 year young sister suffered a brain tumor back in Oct, 2008... until this point thankfully, the for-profit insurance company has paid the bills in tandem with the non-profit disability Medicare she is on...
Now suddenly, the for-profit insurance has decided it will no longer pay for any more treatment even though she has at least another year of therapies and doctor visits to make damn sure the tumor is forever gone... the Medicare is still paying its share, but it is not nearly enough to cover.
Now my brother-in-law has no choice but to not take my sister to the needed treatments she still needs... or the bills will become to much and he could lose the house, but if he does not take her, he could lose his wife, my sister!
How dare these right-wing scumbags make up such vile and despicable lies about Senator Kennedy!
Excuse me while I go scream in my pillow!!!
I know you weren't asking me, but I'll state that no, I don't believe her care would be denied. I also don't believe it would be denied for her counterpart in Canada or the UK, either.
He said that Medicare was paying their share, the portion that they are set up to pay for. Under a national health insurance plan, it would be set up so that those costs are covered.
You're groundlessly fearmongering.
By whose guarantee, politicians in 2009 who will most likely be long gone out of office when cost overruns are staring future lawmakers in the face? What if there is no money to cover those costs?
One could say you're groundlessly fortunetelling.
The decisions won't be made by an anonymous bean-counter operating in a bubble. There will be a natural accountability for care decisions. Reasonable denial of care would potentially receive publicity. Newspapers, televisions and commentators would help create public outrage. Politicians would get involved (whether through true concern or grandstanding is immaterial; the effect would be the same) to make sure that the situation is rectified.
Those deciding on coverage would be aware of such considerations and would be far less likely to deny reasonable coverage than would private insurance companies in circumstances such as captfoster2 described for his sister. Heartless rationing would be less likely under a national insurance plan. Common sense tells us that.
If you're relying on existing systems and political realities then to dismiss how hopelessly woeful the government is at estimating costs and efficiently running anything is naive at best, with your head in the sand. To think that some national exposure in our media will dissuade the government from rationing care is a little ridiculous. If they don't have the money, how are they going to pay for it? That is a direct question that proponents need to step up to the plate and answer - instead of just tossing out feely good platitudes about how evil the greedy insurance companies are. Or by hauling out liberal's boogeyman of the day as some reason to hand our health care over to government bureaucrats.
USAF
USMC
US Navy
Postal Service
Medicare
Those are government run programs that do pretty well as far as they're being run, but I know, government can't do ANYTHING right, even though, most of what they do works out pretty well.
Medicare, same thing. It's run well.
And the government runs the military, and they're well run institutions.
The post office is "nearly broke" because of technological advancement - namely letters are sent and bills are paid primarily online these days. But if you think FedEx or UPS will deliver a parcel for forty cents (or whatever it is now) you obviously have never worked with them.
As for medicare? Aside for the gov't raiding it's funds and replacing cash with IOU's (more an issue with gov't than an issue with medicare) the only other problems are ones that stem inherently from the motley patch-work of crap that we call a health care system. Get everyone in ONE PLAN and have everyone pay for it? Problem solved. (Just stop raiding the program for funding other stuff!)
Innovation is often the most difficult thing to predict when assessing program funding for the future. Seventy Five years ago you could plan funding for the next thirty years. Today, innovations happen in almost real time that can change the game overnight.
Seeing as how YOU want things run differently, why are you fighting HC reforms?
So what is YOUR idea of "better"? I've posted mine, let's hear yours. (And if you want to hear mine again, let me know. So far it has withstood conservative scrutiny.)
Then so is the military, because all the money comes from the government. Should we get rid of the military because it is broke (and way more wasteful than medicare or the post office)?
We spend almost 10 times as much as China, and they are not our biggest threat...
Iran spends a little over 4 billion,. America spends more on military then half the world combined.
Unfortunately, as a politician, if you even consider cutting military costs, you are deemed a veteran-hater, un-American, and weak.
The trust fund for Medicare is too small to fund all the expected costs.
Insurance premiums (a trust fund used to pay health care expenses) keep going up and up because current premiums are not sufficient (too small) to fund all the expected costs.
It's ludicrous to suggest that Medicare is different from any other business that has expanding costs. It's not because it's been poorly run or because it's a bad benefit program.
Well said!
The post office is a highly efficient network that was established by the government, and the only thing that stands in reducing operating costs is labor, which has been greatly reduced due to attrition.
Give it some time, renegotiate some contracts, and the post office will be more competitive... much like how the unions up in motor city had to accept pay reductions to be more competitive with their Japanese competitors.
As for the military, and medicare, they are very efficient, but a focus needs to be made to reduce waste and fraud, but they are two systems, that can be reformed, and that can work better.
The USPS has only recently run into real financial issues. For their entire history they've faced growing demand for their services and have expanded to meet that demand. Suddenly, for the first time in their history, they've seen a drop in that demand with increases in electronic communication, billing, bill-paying and other functions that they used to provide. Yet, they still have the infrastructure that was created to meet the higher demands of a very short amount of time ago.
They will need to change, but it has nothing to do with the efficiency of their operations.
http://84rules.wordpress.com/2009/08/11/a-preview-of-universal-health-care-oregon-woman-denied-medicine-offered-assisted-suicide-instead/
There is a huge difference between denying follow-up care after an apparently successful treatment as described by captfoster2 and declining to pay for experimental $4,000/month drug that has a smaller than 5% survival rate over 5 years. It's extremely unlikely that private insurance carriers would approve such a treatment.
Of course, there would be some reasonable level of rationing, but it's going to be less than can be seen under strictly private insurance plans. Your example is also a good illustration of the point I made to tommy about accountability for such decisions. Such an uproar would certainly make decision-makers give careful consideration to their choices, with the doctors having the most say.
Oh yes, no reason except that the US is ranked 37th in the world and we pay double what other countries pay! No reason besides that!
We cannot provide healthcare for our citizens because we have too many people?? What the - ?
Oh my God! So by that logic we can't provide roads or defense for our people. You would be forced to ask the stupid question "Do you think 300 million people are as easy to provide for as 30 million?" Likewise, we can excuse any inefficiency, either at a business or a corporate level. "Well yea our government has waste, but we have 300 million people?"
Again, starckr, the US is ranked 37th in the world in health care, and we pay double the cost. It is time to catch up to the rest of the world.
You keep saying that as if it were true. And if the government is so in-efficient and BAD at running everything, as you keep insisting even given evdience to the contrary, then why are private insurers so worried?
You are just making things up. In the UK, nobody is denied health insurance because they can't afford it. As I need to keep reminding you, the private sector is doing a terrible job right now. We are ranked 37th in the world and we pay double. UK pays half as much as the US, and has a *better* health care system.
No. We want more choices and a better health care system. We pay twice as much as counties with a single payer option, yet we rank 37th in the world in health care.
My sense is that you are not even trying to argue honestly any more. Rather than address the major problem with your argument--that the US pays more and gets inferior treatment--you keep repeating an argument that makes no sense in light of the facts.
I had taken medical anthropology courses that fouced on comparative studies between America and other developed Western nations, such as England, France, and Germany, and the figures don't look good for America.
If we just stop sitting on our hands and try to work towards change... oops... I used the "C" word. Conservatives have deemed that a negative word because the messiah made change a focus during his campaign.
This only solidifies the thought that Republicans are for the Status Quo...
Did I forget to mention that I am a Republican who voted for Obama, and abhor the tactics and rhetoric coming from the right?
I don't think so. For example, he put Republicans in his cabinet. But I can see where your illogic is coming from--from a deep hatred that a Democrat actually got elected.
And, nothing is being rammed down your throat. This legislation is being poured over everywhere you look. They have had townhall meetings for every concern (whether valid or completely nuts) to be aired. Please explain how it is being rammed down your throats? This is how legislation gets passed in a democracy. Just because laws get passed that you disagree with does not mean it is being rammed down your throat.
Who decides? Individuals who have more accountability to the patient than do the people who decide under private insurance, that's who. That is a simple fact.
You're imagining shortages of revenue that an evenhanded look at the plans doesn't support. Of course, it's in the interest of conservatives to overstate those costs to as extreme a degree as they believe they can get away with.
Beyond that, in most regions of the country there are few real insurance options.
Each insurance company is the same. You can do something about the government program. You can either choose a private insurer, or, you can vote the current government out of office, because, unlike private insurance agencies, the government is democratic.
Ever been covered under a single payer system? Oops, I think not.
Insurance companies throw up roadblocks to coverage ALL OF THE TIME. And normally, it's someone on a phone to an insurance company (A doc normally) trying to get this, or that test approved. Happens every single day, all day long.
Why would the government say that? It could likewise so no more money for the military--does that mean we should have no military?
If competition increases quality and lowers cost, then why is the US ranked 37th in the world in health care, yet pays twice as much as countries with single payer systems?
You are just making things up. Countries with single payer systems don't just print money to solve fiscal problems. The US has a lot of debt right now, but that is largely due to poor tax policies promoted by free market fundamentalists. (And is also a completely different argument.) If we can't afford a government run program, then how can we afford private insurance, which costs *double* what citizens in other countries pay?
No they don't. That is an outright lie. You are just making things up.
And if an insurance company will no longer cover your treatment you CANNOT just go to another carrier. This shows a real ignorance of the health insurance industry. You cannot just switch companies because you think someone else will cover more of the medical procedure you are undergoing.
In order to determine which system is better, you can look at studies, which show the US has an inferior system, but pays more for. We don't have to listen to Pelosi or Omban; I have known this for decades.
That is false. You apparently don't understand what a single payer system is. There are private insurance companies in a single payer system.
I should repeat that the US is 37th in the world in health care, but we pay twice as much as other industrial countries. The citizens that don't have the choice are Americans.
I'm amazed how little faith so many have in the US. Countries all over the world provide every one of their citizens with quality medical care for less than half the price we pay, but these clowns don't think our country is capable of doing the same.
They do not ration care.
The system sucks, dude. Get over it.
Liar. But that's irrelevant because none of the proposals are equivalent to either the UK or Canada.
You just won't accept the fact that health care is rationed RIGHT NOW to millions of people who can't afford it.
But I guess since they are poor they will just have to suffer and die because they didn't work hard enough to make enough money to subsidize the CEO salaries and HMO profits.
But here's your chance. You say health care needs to be reformed. What is your proposal?
And, as Fog said above, we're not even talking about creating a system of that nature here. We're talking about having an optional public plan, for people who can't afford their own, or are not covered because of pre-existing conditions, or because insurance companies won't sell them insurance.
That is so in the UK, which has socialized medicine. The current play is not based on UK's plan. It is more based on Germany's plan, which gives its citizens over 200 private insurers to choose from.
Our twins were born there and my wife got a single room and the best treatment, she had to stay in for 5 days while the boys put on enough weight for it to be safe for them to leave. So any questions about the national health service (NHS) I'm here to answer them.
Wow. What a proposal!! Why didn't I think of that? You'd better get on the phone to Max Baucus and tell him you've got a better idea.
The government won't be in charge. But the government should have a single payer system, so that we save money and get better health.
NO treatment is denied in Canada.
You are wrong again:
Medicare is still paying its share according to captfoster2.
That is in no way a defense. You have to show via a link or other evidence that health care is rationed in Canada and the UK in a way it is not in the US.
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/01/29/john-turley-ewart-rationing-health-care-in-canada-continues-to-take-its-toll.aspx
Your link is broken. And I don't really care about another *editorial* from a right winger. There was a study published just a few days ago by the Urban league that compares Canada and the US, and again, Canada fares better.
We are 37th in the world, and we pay twice as much.
He implied that the hospital had one surgery, which I doubt. It is most likely that there was only one available for day surgery.
YOU imply that this never happens in the US. Apparently, you believe that real life hospitals function like television shows (ER, St. Elsewhere, etc).
Americans do not live in Canada or Great Britain, but conservatives consistently try to draw correlations between their systems and the current health care legislation, obviously drawing some pretty negative lines.
Stephen Hawking rebutted saying if it weren't for the National Health, he wouldn't be here today.
Nobody is talking about having our system like the English and or Canadian system.
You do not.
Your opinion is the one without meaning.
Yes, but strakc has an ideology, which always trumps everything else.
I guess this was made up?
But in doing so, you undermined your own point. It is true that Germany has a better health care system than the US, but so does Canada. We are 37th in the world, and yet we pay double what other countries pay.
It is, however, a biased opinion.
Elective surgery routinely gets pushed out of the way when an emergency situation arises - all over the world.
That is not rationing in any way - it is applying an established system of priority of need (triage is not restricted to military hospitals).
I am certain that the same would have happened in the US.
Have YOU ever lived under the reformed health-care system? No? So why are YOU rendering an opinion that is meaningless?
And so what if it is? Our government doesn't answerto Canada or the UK anyway. What have they (or anyone else) ever doen that we weren't able to do better? (Aside from helath care!)
There is no defense of our current system and you are either a blind, misinformed fool or an evil, willfully ignorant, partisan if you think otherwise.
Stop living your life in fear, my friend. No problems are ever solved by conservatives too afraid to act.
Y'all should start thinking for yourselves and not parroting evrything Limbaugh wants you to be scared of.
You can always tell when someone is losing an argument when they start pointing out grammatical mistakes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6nMegZRejs
T.R. Reid, “5 Myths About Health Care Around the World”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/21/AR2009082101778.html
Ed Pilkington, “Dying for affordable healthcare — the uninsured
speak”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/aug/21/healthcare-provision-us-uk
Stephen Amidon, “Why I love Britain’s socialized healthcare system”
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/08/22/nhs/
Paul E. Barber, “My Brain and the Ontario Health-Care System“
http://the-reaction.blogspot.com/2009/08/my-brain-and-ontario-health-care-system.html
Dying for affordable healthcare — the uninsured speak”
Why I love Britain’s socialized healthcare system”
My Brain and the Ontario Health-Care System“
That first article is very, very good. Thanks!
I agree with funnymanpants. All four are good but that first article is exceptional. I'm going to bookmark it as I'm sure it'll be useful fairly often in the coming weeks.
Everyone should read your 5 Myths article. It's great.
Liberals usually think & react more on the emotional side while conservative people usually think and react on the more logical side. Hence why you see liberals claiming how "hateful" conservatives are because we don't care as much as they do.
Bland talking point with no basis in fact. That's what conservatives come up with when the facts don't favor them. See how easy those generalizations are to make?
The entire negative campaign waged by the conservatives relies on fear alone. This is emotion, not logic. You have the positions reversed. eg: end of life counseling is turned into death panels. Every aspect of the issue is being distorted in exactly the same way. No logic - no facts.
Abortion? "Every abortion stops a beating heart". That's not pulling at heartstrings?
Stem cell research? "These embryos are living souls and they should be flushed down the toilet instead of used for the public good" is not particularly logical, to say the least.
Warrantless wiretapping? "Sure, you can get a retroactive warrant now, but...um...terrorists! 9/11!"
Gay marriage? "Straight marriage will be desecrated and it'll lead to people legally marrying ducks".
And, of course, health care: "Death panels! They'll kill granny!"
I'm sure there's more.
All the social issues you brought up, in my opinion, should be none of the government's business - but those that do believe they should be are actually quite unemotional about it, they are deeply held convictions.
For you to put those out there as examples of emotional arguments just goes to show you really don't understand what emotional arguments are, because you are too deeply invested yourself in why you oppose each one, emotionally.
Religion itself is a firmly held belief, but it is the very opposite of logic. It's belief in something in spite of logical considerations. The same way that one has a firm conviction that we all came from two people dropped into the Garden of Eden, one also has a firm conviction that an embryo is a sacred entity that God would rather see disposed of than used to help Alzheimer's patients.
There is a textbook example of an emotional argument right there, I couldn't have made a better more classic example if I tried, and it came directly from you. You figure out why you think that is from emotion and that settles the discussion. I have even highlighted the operative word for you, to make it easier.
No it's not. That doesn't even come close to an emotional argument, and I have taught English at the college level.
Also, there are plenty of logical reasons for a safety net. Whether someone has "earned" something or not, the lack of such a system leads to homelessness and crime. It makes perfect sense on a societal level to create some semblance of balance. Remember that one of the key causes of the French Revolution was the enormous disparity between the wealthy class and the poor. I'm not saying the Reign of Terror was justified, or that we're anywhere close to that right now, but you can point out these sorts of things without it being based on hatred of the rich.
While I agree with your argument, you don't need to really justify your position. Question mark Tommy isn't even close to understanding what an emotional argument is. By his definition, we could call anything he argues--in fact, any argument--"emotional."
No they are not. But your post certainly is. Again, you don't understand what an emotional argument is. I have taught college English, so I do. Simply disagreeing with someone doesn't make your argument emotional.
Now calling someone "dense." That *is* emotional, which is a bit ironic.
Now who is arguing from emotion? If you want a good example of an emotional argument, just look at your last two posts. Lashing out and name calling is certainly an emotional argument. Differing on tax policy is not. Do you see the difference?
Oh, good grief! Just because an opponent is arguing for a certain tax policy, that makes his argument emotional? You need to look up what an emotional argument is. You are not even close.
I'm not sure what point you think you're making here. The comment was that conservatives think logically while liberals think emotionally. If the examples I provided show a lack of logical thinking on the part of conservatives, then how are they poor examples?
Like I said, none of them has a place in government.
You really need to look up what an emotional argument is. Emotional arguments are more often based on "ingrained" feelings. That is why they are emotional and hard to counter with logic.
synonyms see feeling
And you didn't manage to answer my contention. I asked you to look up emotional *argument.* You have not even come close. According to you, anyone who disagree with you is using an emotional argument.
But yes you did. You used a difference of tax policy as an example of an emotional argument. Accusing someone of making an emotional argument is really rather silly. Again, you don't understand what an emotional argument is, do you?
I find your distinction a little odd. There may be a difference in the root cause of the emotion, but that doesn't really change the nature of it. If you're taught that left-handed people are evil, then you may hold that as a conviction, but your reaction to left-handed people is still not based on reason.
What's the middle ground between "logic" and "emotion"? Is there a third category?
But this has nothing to do with an emotional argument. You don't seem to understand what an emotional argument is.
(By the way, accusing someone of arguing from emotion is the same as accusing him as arguing for a certain motivation, the weakest form of argument, simply because either side can make it.)
We're getting into psychosis here, though. I wouldn't claim that these people are literally psychotic or anything.
I appreciate our discussion here and the respectful tone in your posts, thank you.
But this is just one of the problems with your flawed argument. It doesn't really matter if people are emotionally involved in arguments; it doesn't invalidate them. People against slavery were very, very emotionally involved. Being emotionally involved doesn't mean you make an *emotional* argument, which you apparently don't understand.
By the way, your initial post in which you claim that a progressive taxation system is an emotionally argument is in itself emotionally charged. You claim that those who want to tax the rich do so out of class envy. You are using an emotion (your belief on why why people want to tax the rich) rather than an argument. That is the whole problem with using motivation as an argument.
That right there is the perfect example of an emotional argument. It consists entirely of name calling. Are you trying to be ironic?
That is simply false, and anyway, has *noting* to do with an emotional argument, which you apparently don't understand.
That is pretty laughable. Basing an argument on a belief is arguing from raw emotion. More to the point, arguing that there are death panels absolutely arguing from raw emotion. And ignoring the fact that the US is ranked 37th in the world and pays double what the rest of the world pays, and thereby making silly arguments that we can't afford a single payer system, is also arguing from raw emotion.