About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

SHOCK: House health care bill saves $260,000 per word!

October 30, 2009 10:54 am ET — 154 Comments

Right-wing media have run with the Politico's Jonathan Allen misleading calculation that the House's recently announced health care reform legislation costs "about $2.24 million per word." In fact, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that the America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 "would result in a net reduction in federal budget deficits of $104 billion"; therefore, using Allen's formula, the bill would actually save $260,000 per word.

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

Allen's calculation: House bill costs "$2.24 million per word"

From Allen's October 29 Politico article:

The House health care bill unveiled Thursday clocks in at 1,990 pages and about 400,000 words. With an estimated 10-year cost of $894 billion, that comes out to about $2.24 million per word.

In fact, bill saves $260,000 per word

CBO: "H.R. 3962 would result in a net reduction in federal budget deficits of $104 billion over the 2010--2019 period." From CBO:

Estimated Budgetary Impact of H.R. 3962

According to CBO and JCT's assessment, enacting H.R. 3962 would result in a net reduction in federal budget deficits of $104 billion over the 2010--2019 period (see Table 1). In the subsequent decade, the collective effect of its provisions would probably be slight reductions in federal budget deficits. Those estimates are all subject to substantial uncertainty.

The estimate includes a projected net cost of $894 billion over 10 years for the proposed expansions in insurance coverage. That net cost itself reflects a gross total of $1,055 billion in subsidies provided through the exchanges (and related spending), increased net outlays for Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and tax credits for small employers; those costs are partly offset by $167 billion in collections of penalties paid by individuals and employers. On balance, other effects on revenues and outlays associated with the coverage provisions add $6 billion to their total cost.

Over the 2010--2019 period, the net cost of the coverage expansions would be more than offset by the combination of other spending changes, which CBO estimates would save $426 billion, and receipts resulting from the income tax surcharge on high-income individuals and other provisions, which JCT and CBO estimate would increase federal revenues by $572 billion over that period.

Using Allen's calculation, bill saves $260,000 per word. If one were to divide the $104 billion deficit reduction that CBO estimates the House bill would cause by the number of words in the bill, which Allen claims is 400,000, then one would find that the bill would save $260,000 per word.

Right-wing media run with Allen's calculation

Drudge: "$2.2M a word." The October 30 homepage of the Drudge Report highlighted Allen's story as its headline article. From the Drudge Report:

drudge $2.2M

Fox & Friends: Bill "costs us $2.2 million per word." Fox & Friends repeatedly highlighted the $2.2 million-per-word calculation during its October 30 broadcast. Co-host Steve Doocy said, "Extraordinarily, with the 400,000 words -- I think it was Politico that averaged -- it costs us $2.2 million per word, what's in this thing."

Fox News' Hemmer: Bill costs "2.5 million per word." On the October 30 edition of America's Newsroom, co-host Bill Hemmer said the House bill "clocks in at exactly 1,990 pages. That's half a billion dollars per page, 2.5 million per word."

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by AlwaysGrounded (October 30, 2009 11:09 am ET)
      8  
      Also using Allen's calculation, reducing the bill to Zero words would increase the savings to infinity. Think about that one.....
      Report Abuse
      • Author by brutusmaximus (October 31, 2009 2:15 am ET)
        2 7
        Using MMFA's idiotic logic, increasing the bill by 27,000 pages would cover this year's budget deficit.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by carlileb5935 (October 31, 2009 2:42 am ET)
          7  
          You know, you either have brains, or you don't have brains. If you can't figure out why this is a foolish analogy then it's no use explaining it to you, but I will. The Bill actually saves money over present expenditures on health care, so you can average it out to that MMFA amount.

          The fallacy behind O'Reilly etc. is that they presume there are no present expenditures on health care, and that this Bill all-of-sudden creates them. Your budget analogy also relies upon generating expenditures out of thin air, which means of course that there are no savings anywhere if you increase the number of pages.

          What did Gore Vidal say the other night on CNN, that we are the worst educated people in the world? He said that in response to the question of whether Obama's election will mean good things. His point is, that it's all hopeless in this country.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by brutusmaximus (October 31, 2009 2:20 pm ET)
            1 7
            Vidal is right. With all the leftists out there who think that more government meddling is going to cut costs and result in better service "it's all hopeless in this country".
            Report Abuse
            • Author by foghornleghorn (October 31, 2009 2:31 pm ET)
              7 1
              The CBO says it will cut costs. Service will NOT get better, but it will be available to everyone.

              In case you missed it, 122 people died yesterday due to not having health insurance. Is that acceptable to you?
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Mr. Buzztime (October 31, 2009 2:39 pm ET)
                   
                In case you missed it, 122 people died yesterday due to not having health insurance. Is that acceptable to you?


                Where do you come up with this stuff?
                Report Abuse
              • Author by brutusmaximus (October 31, 2009 9:28 pm ET)
                2 5
                "122 people died yesterday due to not having health insurance."

                What a load of crap. But even if that was anywhere near the truth it would be less than the number who die in Canada and Britain waiting for healthcare.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by Tbone Slickens (November 02, 2009 5:03 am ET)
                2 2
                How many of that 122 would have died anyway due to end of life issues, health care or not?
                Report Abuse
            • Author by roundhouse (October 31, 2009 2:54 pm ET)
              5  
              What's the Republican answer?

              That's right you do not have one. When the Republicans have a plan you can gripe, until then you sound stupid.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by brutusmaximus (October 31, 2009 9:31 pm ET)
                1 4
                HSAs with a high deductible. That's what I have and it's a lot cheaper and better than anything the government could possibly offer.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by roundhouse (October 31, 2009 9:47 pm ET)
                  3 1
                  No, the gutless Republicans, what do they have on the table? Nothing. They're too damn spineless to put some skin in the game.
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by Jeremy Danials (November 01, 2009 2:32 pm ET)
                  2  
                  Oh, so you mean that you want to do the same thing that Bush wanted to do to Social Security? Remember how badly THAT was debunked as worthless drivel that would've only harmed America's seniors, and not helped them?

                  Or, if you want to try a different truth, let's all remember the conservative idea of...HMO's. That's right, Health Maintenince Organizations that did NOTHING to stem the rising cost of healthcare, and since we NEVER hear of those anymore, it's obvious that they flopped.

                  Oh, and according to Wikipedia, those would cost me, a single father, between $2,400 to $11,900! With the job market wrecked by deregulation, recession, and other conservative ideals, what lower-middle class family affected by this poor economy can afford it?
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by brutusmaximus (November 01, 2009 9:13 pm ET)
                    2 2
                    According to wikipedia?? Why would you get information about how much your HSA would cost from wikipedia? Unless you live in a socialist state like New York or California, etc, it would be less than $400/mo ($379 for me and my wife and kids) for a good policy from United Healthcare.

                    Try taking care of yourself and your kids and stop whining and demanding more from the government.
                    Report Abuse
    • Author by Diosnomeama (October 30, 2009 11:11 am ET)
      8  
      Checking the veracity of information before you show it as fact is a basic tenet of journalism, too bad Fox has no actual journalists.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Bad News (October 30, 2009 11:17 am ET)
      7 2
      Steve Doocy, This Man is a Sadist.
      He Lusts for The Deception & The Lie & he Truly believes that Fox News is the Greatest.
      It's been said that an African American can spot a Racist just by the Expression on his Face.
      Don't take my Word for it Watch Fox & Friends & take a close look at Doocy as he interviews someone of the African American Race?

      Speak truth to power.


      Mr. News
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Bad News (October 30, 2009 11:36 am ET)
        3 5
        Bill O'Reilly, Your Apology to Andrea Mackris is Way Overdue.
        To Hurt a Woman & not Show Contrition says everything we need to know about You.
        You Send out "The Griff" for the Ambush Interview when it's Bill-O the Clown he should be Seeking.
        All the Women in your community should Lock their Doors Halloween Night because "The Telephone Man" may be out in his RainCoat Trick or Treating.

        Speak truth to power.


        Mr. News

        Report Abuse
    • Author by southerngal (October 30, 2009 11:30 am ET)
      8  
      So the legislation is nearly 2000 pages and almost a half a million words, it is what it is. Probably no different than Bush's prescription drug bill or any number of bills that are fat with regulation and convoluted mumbo-jumbo. But to go on about how much each word costs is ridiculous.

      Don't most of these Fox hosts ever get tired of looking like idiots?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by roundhouse (October 30, 2009 12:18 pm ET)
        5  
        How long have you been posting at MMFA?
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Dmacalypse (October 30, 2009 2:34 pm ET)
        5  
        No, because their "audience" is packed full with idiots that nod in agreement no matter how ridiculous the argument or proposal
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Jollymon (October 30, 2009 4:27 pm ET)
        7  
        Well heavan forbid they actually take into consideration the documents are double spaced, massive indents, narrow paragraphs, idexes, contents pages, headers and typical government document rhetoric, and it really comes out to about 360 pages or so of healthcare information.

        But why should the politicians we elect to represent us take the time to read legislation if it has more pages than a Dr. Suess book and has no pictures. That is just too hard for them to do!

        I don't care how many pages it has, or cost per word. That isnt the important issue, its what the bill is about! Geez!
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Eric Jaffa (October 30, 2009 11:35 am ET)
      10  
      It's stupid to complain that a bill has too many words.

      There is a lot of vagueness in the House health care bill. For example, it leaves it up to the HHS Secretary to decide who will settle disputes over rescission.

      It would have been better if Congress specified a good way to deal with that issue instead of leaving it up to the HHS Secretary to write either good or bad regulations.

      It's desirable for bills to be specific.

      The length of a bill is only a problem when Congress isn't given time to read it before voting. Congress does have time to read the House health care bill.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by hoosier (October 30, 2009 11:50 am ET)
        9
      All very much ado about nothing.

      Intrade, where people actually put up real money, has the chances of the public option going through by Dec. 30 at less than 10%.

      Will a federal government run health insurance plan (a public option) be approved in the US?



      Slightly higher for it happening by MAR 2010, marginally higher by JUNE 2010..
      Report Abuse
      • Author by roundhouse (October 30, 2009 12:23 pm ET)
        8  
        I guess they would know who in our government are bought and paid for by the insurance industry.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by mikehuck1976 (October 30, 2009 4:58 pm ET)
        5  
        "Intrade, where people actually put up real money, has the chances of the public option going through by Dec. 30 at less than 10%."

        Ha Ha HA! That's hilarious. But, what's the line at?
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Acidgawd (October 30, 2009 11:53 am ET)
      6  
      This type of despicable deception should win these clowns a worst persons spot on Olbermann tonight.

      I wish I could lie like a Fox News personality, but alas I have a conscience.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by dexteritas0071418 (October 30, 2009 12:06 pm ET)
      2 10
      Is that savings on Pelosi's estimate of the total cost or the CBO's? Because they're different, something MMfA seems to not have mentioned.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by highliter (October 30, 2009 12:24 pm ET)
        3 9
        MMFA also fails to tell you the only reason its shows it saves money is that it starts collecting now but doesn’t take effect until 2012. It also assumes that they can save 400 billion from Medicare.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by mk3872 (October 30, 2009 12:29 pm ET)
          8 2
          I see that the rightie trolls are here and completely ignoring the laughable Malkin-ish idiocracy of counting the number of words in a bill and assigning that count to a bill's costs or benefits. ROFL!
          Report Abuse
        • Author by DellDolly (October 30, 2009 9:07 pm ET)
          6 1
          No, it doesn't assume they can save $400 Billion from Medicare. They assume they can save $400 Billion from Medicare Advantage - they'll take away the excess profits that private health insurance providers have been garnering from that program. Amazingly enough, this program was implemented by the Republican Congress with the false belief that it would save money to have private insurance companies managing this program!

          It will be easy to save the $400 Billion once we wrest control from private insurers.

          Yeah, I know, your friends have told you that it was cutting "waste". It wasn't.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by pongotwistleton (October 30, 2009 12:42 pm ET)
        9
      http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9BKU4HG0&show_article=1

      Reveal yourself Sting. Under which moniker are you posting here at mediamatters?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by TX (October 30, 2009 1:04 pm ET)
      1 9
      The length and cost of the bill don't matter at this point -- even the CBO stated above "Those estimates are all subject to substantial uncertainty."

      With the government running it, it will probably turn out to be 2x as expensive and we'll all end up paying for it in the end. What a joke!

      I hope all our state representatives vote AGAINST this bill!!
      Report Abuse
      • Author by foghornleghorn (October 30, 2009 1:29 pm ET)
        13 2
        How much is too much money to spend to prevent the deaths of thousands?

        How much is too much money to spend to prevent the thousands of bankruptcies?

        How much is too much money to spend for people to get preventative care so they can lead healthier lives?

        How much is too much money to spend so that 43 year old men don't have to join the Army to acquire health care for his family?

        The insurance company vampires have already told us that rates will continue to rise at a rate more than inflation.

        Care to answer NY Rep. Weiner's question: What do insurance companies bring to the table in regards to health care?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by roundhouse (October 30, 2009 1:47 pm ET)
          10  
          Come on Foghorn, don't let morality trump profits.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by qnrfan (October 30, 2009 2:47 pm ET)
          2 7
          "how much is too much to spend for people to get preventative care?"

          Are you kidding me? Here's some free preventative care for ya: don't smoke, don't drink, eat a healthy well-balanced diet, exercise!!

          The cost of healthcare is out of control because of people who make bad lifestyle choices, and continue to do so even after being counselled to death by healthcare professionals. Multiple hospitalizations doesn't seem to deter them either- most of whose costs are already being picked up by taxpayer dollars. Asthma, emphysema, heart disease, stroke, obesity- all can be greatly reduced if people took responsibility for themselves. Oh, silly me, why should they do that when Big Brother is always there to BAIL THEM OUT and take care of them?

          These so-called people that supposedly cannot afford health insurance sure seem to have money to smoke and drink, they have cell phones and new cars, etc...

          Government bailouts are not the answer- nothing is going to change until people in this country are held accountable for their actions.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by roundhouse (October 30, 2009 5:14 pm ET)
            6 1
            Blah, blah, blah. Tell it to the millions of Americans who have lost their jobs and health benefits because some stuffed suit decided it was more profitable to relocate overseas where labor is cheap.

            Healthcare is a right, not a privilege
            Report Abuse
            • Author by southerngal (October 30, 2009 5:17 pm ET)
                7
              "Healthcare is a right, not a privilege"

              You keep saying that, but beyond the fact that is merely your opinion, can you provide some evidence, say, in our Bill of Rights or another founding document that would agree with your opinion?
              Report Abuse
              • Author by roundhouse (October 30, 2009 5:49 pm ET)
                6  
                You can agree or disagree. It speaks to your level of humanity. It's really that simple.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by southerngal (October 30, 2009 5:58 pm ET)
                  1 5
                  I don't believe it's either one, actually. It's obviously not some inherent right anymore than toothpaste is. And I don't think it's a privelege because that speaks to only a select few. Frankly, I don't know what to call it and I don't think it demands to be called one of the other. I know it needs fixing, and I am not opposed to seeing where a good health care bill goes, if the Dems deliver one that proves an improvement, good for them, I will support it. I don't even take all these cost estimates seriously anyway, from the Dems or the Reps. We just don't know. I am open to it from Pelosi, Reed and Obama. Will see.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by Ruby (October 30, 2009 7:46 pm ET)
                    8  
                    We have a right to life.

                    And nobody should lose that just because they can't afford health care.

                    No one should go broke while they're fighting for their life.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by brutusmaximus (October 31, 2009 2:35 am ET)
                        10
                      How are you going to exercise your "right" to life and affordable health care when doctors refuse to participate in this idiotic program?
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by foghornleghorn (October 31, 2009 2:33 pm ET)
                        5  
                        Ha! Wake up my friend. Doctors will be jumping for joy because they will have 40+ million more patients.
                        Report Abuse
              • Author by roundhouse (October 30, 2009 5:51 pm ET)
                5  
                And there are plenty of rights we take for granted today that are not specifically enumerated in our founding documents.

                Report Abuse
                • Author by brutusmaximus (October 31, 2009 2:26 am ET)
                  2 8
                  The "roght" to take my money to pay for your health care is not one of them. Why don't you leftist losers try taking care of yourselves and your own families for a change.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by mescal (October 31, 2009 2:35 am ET)
                    4  
                    ... said the voice of compassion.
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by roundhouse (October 31, 2009 11:20 am ET)
                    7  
                    I do take care of my family, we all do to the best of our ability. It's just that healthcare drives too many people to financial ruin.

                    In America nobody should go broke because they get sick.

                    Moreover, you have the right to not partake of anything subsidized by tax payers. You have the right to drop out of society and go it alone.

                    You have the right to deny the fact that we are all connected and ignore the truth that when a few of us suffer unnecessarily we are all worse for it.
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by roundhouse (October 31, 2009 12:22 pm ET)
                    8  
                    Something else to consider, Brutus. What do you expect from a Party whose only option is failure?

                    Republicans said way back in June that they would craft a reform bill and here it is basically November and they have nothing. Understandably so, too. If they actually came up with a plan to compare with the Democrats, it would most likely look very sad in a side by side.

                    And why wouldn't it look stupid in comparison? How are they going to craft a solution that bucks the status quo? Republicans are the status quo, they can't find solutions when they don't see a problem. Seriously, how are they going to craft a solution that goes against the insurance industry by protecting consumer rights, doesn't raise taxes, lowers the deficit and has zero government intervention in the market? They can't do it, their rigid ideology prohibits it. All they are left with is working toward failure.

                    Republicans truly suck.
                    Report Abuse
              • Author by jimieli (November 01, 2009 2:36 am ET)
                1  
                notice the words general welfare,(Welfare
                welfare n. 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being) nothing is more important to my general welfare than my well-being-HEALTHCARE -, so it is not just my opinion but others like the founding fathers. We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
                Report Abuse
        • Author by dexteritas0071418 (October 30, 2009 3:07 pm ET)
            8
          At least foghornleghorn is honest.

          There's really no point in arguing about how much it'll cost, because although you try to diminish the arguments of those who worry about that, you really don't care, so your motivation is not truth or understanding, as it is a means to and end.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by southerngal (October 30, 2009 4:47 pm ET)
            1 6
            And that cavalier attitude towards spending an infinite amount of our money, all in the name of "health care", is what should worry every American. As if "health care" is inherently absolved of any fraud or government waste because if one demands fiscal accountability then it's obvious you care more about money than human life. And liberals can hold up signs with some running count as lives are being lost because the government isn't administering health care.

            Every time the government gets its hands on one penny of our money we should all be front and center demanding absolute accountability, instead of people like Foghorn who basically gives them a free ATM card with somebody else's money while telling all of us to shut up, it's "health care"!
            Report Abuse
            • Author by mikehuck1976 (October 30, 2009 5:32 pm ET)
              5  
              Where did foghorn say that he did not care about waste? Where in the world did you ever get the idea that waste is only something that the government does?
              Report Abuse
              • Author by southerngal (October 30, 2009 5:38 pm ET)
                  6
                And where did I say that, mikechuck? I said he had a cavalier attitude about spending our money on health care, read his post, he most certainly did say that with his "How much is too much money to spend" mantra.

                And where did I say that only government wastes, mikechuck? Of course there is plenty of waste in private companies but they don't ask more money from taxpayers to replenish the waste.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by peace4all (October 30, 2009 5:47 pm ET)
                  4  
                  ever heared of the TARP bill? or the auto industry? or we can go way back and ask harley davidson.
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by mikehuck1976 (October 30, 2009 6:43 pm ET)
                  5  
                  "Every time the government gets its hands on one penny of our money we should all be front and center demanding absolute accountability, instead of people like Foghorn who basically gives them a free ATM card with somebody else's money while telling all of us to shut up, it's "health care"!" - righton

                  Then I miss the point here. What is it you think foghorn is not demanding accountability for?
                  Report Abuse
            • Author by peace4all (October 30, 2009 5:43 pm ET)
              6 1
              the big question is where the heck were you and your buddies while bush and the other republicans were spending us into oblivion with 2 wars a huge new government program (homeland security) tax breaks for rich people, ect..
              at least now were going to be spending on something that will help everyone instead of just the select few that the pepugs favor. if you want to have any credibility at all please provide a link to a post you have somewhere made during the bush administration to show that you were as upset with spending then.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by southerngal (October 30, 2009 5:53 pm ET)
                4 4
                "the big question is where the heck were you and your buddies while bush and the other republicans were spending us into oblivion"

                Sick to my stomach.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by peace4all (October 30, 2009 5:59 pm ET)
                  4  
                  prove it, show me a post where you complained about it at the time.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by southerngal (October 30, 2009 6:01 pm ET)
                      6
                    Do you think I care to prove anything to you? Go back and read some of my posts on the subject if you are so inclined.
                    Report Abuse
            • Author by jeffro (October 30, 2009 9:07 pm ET)
              5  
              Every time the government gets its hands on one penny of our money we should all be front and center demanding absolute accountability, instead of people like TOMMY Who basically gives them a free ATM card with somebody else's money while telling all of us to shut up, it's " Were Fight n em' over There so We don't gotta fight em over Here!"!
              Punk Shill.
              Report Abuse
          • Author by loonz (October 30, 2009 5:19 pm ET)
            6  
            His point is why should there be a price tag on someone's health. I think it's a good question. We should be debating how we get every American the health care they need; the price tag should be an afterthought. Health care is not one of the areas where we should be frugal.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by southerngal (October 30, 2009 5:23 pm ET)
                6
              So then why do you care what you personally spend on health care? Since there should be no price tag and any prior thought to the costs of any of it is wrong, to you.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by loonz (October 30, 2009 5:42 pm ET)
                4  
                Well, if the trend with health care costs continue, I and others will not be able to afford it. I would hope my government has my back.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by southerngal (October 30, 2009 5:46 pm ET)
                    6
                  You didn't answer my question, I'll ask it another way then.

                  Why is it perfectly acceptable for you to insist that the government give a mere afterthought to what they spend on healthcare, with taxpayer money, but you feel that you have every right and necessity to make sure it fits within your personal budget?
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by peace4all (October 30, 2009 5:53 pm ET)
                    6 1
                    your an idiot

                    the reason we need the government to step in is because the insurance companies take our money for the premium and then when we get sick they renig on their part of the deal and refuse to pay for things that need to be done. not because you don't need the treatment but so that they can line their pockets with our money.
                    the insurance industry had their chance, they got greedy and blew it. it's time for a public option. they can either compete or fold up. either way works for me.
                    my wife had cancer and we had insurance. they left us hanging with 200k in bills. we lost everything and it took my wife a longer time to recover because of the stress caused by the insurance companies not doing their job.
                    Report Abuse
                      • Author by peace4all (October 30, 2009 6:12 pm ET)
                        8 1
                        i did answer your question, the idiot term also refers to your comprehension skills.
                        Report Abuse
                  • Author by loonz (October 30, 2009 6:26 pm ET)
                    5  
                    You say that as though I'm not a taxpayer.

                    As a moral and humane people, we should be making sure that every American has the health care they need. Although conservatives may disagree, I believe no one should be allowed to suffer and/or die because they can't afford the costs associated with health care.

                    And as I said before, if the trend continues in health care costs, more and more Americans will be priced out of the health insurance market (a market of which we don't need). The government of which we all pay taxes to is an entity that can pick up the costs.

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by southerngal (October 30, 2009 6:33 pm ET)
                      1 5
                      As though you're not a taxpayer? I made no inference, that is absurd. I asked you two simple questions about why you don't apply the standards of prioritizing your own costs of health care with that of the government. You think costs should be off the table, or something, but why then do you not put them off the table in your own household? I assume you don't. You can't. Nobody can, that is the point.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by loonz (October 30, 2009 6:59 pm ET)
                        5  
                        You're asking a stupid question. You're essentially saying why won't I pay for something I can't afford.
                        Report Abuse
                  • Author by loonz (October 30, 2009 6:33 pm ET)
                    4  
                    Also, I never said health care costs should fit within my budget. In my opinion, the health insurance industry is a middleman we don't need. They profit off of denying people care and it's sickening. The government can start paying the bills.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by southerngal (October 30, 2009 6:35 pm ET)
                      2 5
                      "The government can start paying the bills"

                      Who do you think the government is? And why do you think there is an unending supply of money there? Nobody can be that naive, nobody. It's easy to sit there and say the government can pay the bills, how recklessly irresponsible that is. Do you think money grows on trees, I mean, you must.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by loonz (October 30, 2009 6:56 pm ET)
                        4  
                        If someone needs health care, we have to pay for it. Do you suggest we let them suffer and die?
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by DellDolly (October 30, 2009 9:15 pm ET)
                          6  
                          The issue is that healthcare is getting more and more expensive. If something isn't done, not only will the people currently covered cost the government more, but more people will be added to the rolls, which will make the govt have an unbearable burden for these entitlements. Additionally, there are all the costs that are covering those uninsured people who just show up at hospitals, and the related costs to insurance programs and Medicare and Medicaid for those healthcare costs!

                          Have you not heard any of the discussions about why healthcare reform was an absolute requirement? Part of the discussion about why it had to happen was because the costs were going to strangle the government. This reform is going to cost the goverment LESS in the long run since it's not going to allow those costs to increase in the same way.
                          Report Abuse
                  • Author by mikehuck1976 (October 30, 2009 6:49 pm ET)
                    5  
                    "Why is it perfectly acceptable for you to insist that the government give a mere afterthought to what they spend on healthcare, with taxpayer money, but you feel that you have every right and necessity to make sure it fits within your personal budget?" - RightOn

                    I think you are missing part of the equation here. You think Americans first thought on healthcare is to make "sure it fits within your personal budget"? I think that is completely untrue. The first thought is that everyone is provided the healthcare they need. If my son were to need a transplant of some kind, I would not care whether or not it fit into my budget. I would spend every dollar I did not have in order to make it happen. This is why healthcare does not work when compared to widgets. There is a flat demand curve and there will never be a true market price for healthcare. There is no price you are not willing to pay when it is a life or death decision.
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by srichardson (October 31, 2009 10:07 am ET)
                    4  
                    Maybe bc loonz pays taxes too. The majority of people in this country work, even liberals even though the right wing want to spread the misconception that all liberals are lazy. I do think it's time the government starts spending our money more wisely and frankly, I think providing healthcare for people is a wise choice. If we are going to complain about government waste, why not complain about the waste that only benefits the wealthy? Healthcare will benefit the larger majority of people. And I'm really sick of these conservatives calling liberals lazy. You can't assume that those who can't afford healthcare don't work. It's really a pathetic, selfish argument.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Frankeee (November 01, 2009 3:14 am ET)
                         
                      Wow, dude, I know where that "Stash" comment comes from. You think that he interviewed only the people shown on that video? You think that was the smartest remark he received from anyone? You think many more people are that dumb and think in that way? Because if you do, you accept the fact that Americans are dumb and why would you do that? That's unpatriotic and means you burn the flag. See what I did there? That's called an Ad Hominem. Those are bad.
                      Report Abuse
                • Author by retiredinsf (October 30, 2009 8:40 pm ET)
                  2 7
                  Don't you worry even a little bit loonz. Obama has your back. He'll pay for your insurance with his "Obama stash".

                  Ya know, the pathetic thing is half of the folks on this Board probably think Obama has a stash not gotten from taxpayers!!!!!!!
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by loonz (October 31, 2009 3:45 pm ET)
                    5 1
                    My union has my back. I don't need government help. And frankly the legislation the Democrats are proposing will help conservatives way more than liberals. Liberals tend to be better educated than conservatives and therefore would have more resources available to them.
                    Report Abuse
          • Author by foghornleghorn (October 30, 2009 7:15 pm ET)
            6  
            There's really no point in arguing about how much it'll cost - dexter

            There probably will be increased costs. But there will be increased benefits. Thousands not dying, hundreds of thousands not facing bankruptcy, untold thousands more who lead healthier lives because they are not afraid to see a doctor due to the price tag.

            My argument is that there are benefits to these possible increased costs. And in my opinion, the benefits outweigh the costs.

            That's what the health reform deniers can't see. Because these benefits don't come with a fixed price tag. And I agree with peace4all below. The insurance company vampires had their chance and they blew it with their greed.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by roundhouse (October 30, 2009 1:46 pm ET)
        11  
        The joke is on you, friend. The right is finally going to lose one. The biggest one, in fact. We will get a public option, it won't be perfect but it will be a success, Obama will be re-elected on the heels of this historic victory over corporate interests and the Republican Party will dissolve; being replaced by the Conservative Party.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by webgiant (October 30, 2009 3:39 pm ET)
          2 5
          We'll get a public option. It will suck. It will make people say "gosh, public options really do suck!"

          Republicans always succeed in getting an awful compromise passed instead of a real option, then point to the awful compromise and claim it was the real option.

          The problem is that to a Democrat, "bipartisan" means "both sides get some of what they want," while to a Republican, "bipartisan" means "Republicans get everything they want and Democrats get nothing." Not much different from "Republican partisan."

          The public option in this bill reminds me of the "alternative energy" bills which came out of the last Administration. Instead of something real, workable, and renewable, like solar, hydrogen, or wind power, we got ethanol.

          Ethanol causes corn prices to spike here in the U.S.A., causing the price on meat, milk, eggs, and anything made with high fructose corn syrup (meaning every other kind of food not found in a health food store) to go up in price as well. Ethanol allows people to keep using their existing cars, with up to 10% ethanol mixed into the gasoline. Ethanol also will not work as a solution, because we'd need the entire food production (leaving no food left to feed anyone) of four Earths to replace the U.S.A.'s current oil usage.

          Ethanol causes people to say "gosh, alternative fuels really do suck!"
          Report Abuse
          • Author by joedla1117 (October 30, 2009 7:11 pm ET)
            6  
            First of all comparing the much needed public option to those energy bills is rather absurd. Most of the energy bills from the last administration did next to nothing. Ethanol may not be the best answer at this time. Will you still be against it when gasoline hits $9 a gallon in a couple of years. When you are paying more to fill your tank than putting food on the table, you may change your mind. I am very surprised that there has not been a push for sugar based ethanol, like they are using and producing in South America. I think you can blame the last administration for that lack of initiation. Also according to the latest science publications algae are another strong possibility. Maybe you prefer giving your money to the privately owned oil conglomerates.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by mk3872 (October 30, 2009 1:48 pm ET)
        7  
        You don't ever work with financial forecasts or budget, then, I take it?

        Dealing with uncertainty and risk is part of the job of managers, financial analysts and legislatures.

        But maybe you just watched FNC and thought a bill's costs & benefits were all based on the number of pages that it prints out as??
        Report Abuse
        • Author by southerngal (October 30, 2009 2:03 pm ET)
          4 8
          The difference between managers and financial analysts of companies vs. legislators and bureaucrats in government is accountability. Managers and analysts have to perform, they are held accountable for financial worthiness and restraint, on-time and strict budget requirements, and a host of other duties to ensure job security.

          On the other hand, legislators will be termed out before any legislation they work on now will be put through the financial grinder for growing beyond imagination and a bloated budget that is 10x what they promised, and government bureaucrats know that if they have any money leftover their budgets will be reduced and $$ allocated will be decreased. So it is NOT in their best interest to save, or allocate funds being mindful of fiscal restraint as in private companies - because if they do it's at their own peril.

          That is the inherent problem with government run programs, and until that system is overhauled, waste and fraud and abuse will permeate every government program out there.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by roundhouse (October 30, 2009 2:11 pm ET)
            11  
            So all those financial managers who blew up Wall St and the economy with it are accountable? Ha! That's funny. While working people sink deeper into debt, lose their jobs, homes and get dropped by insurance companies, corporations turn record profits and keep giving themselves bigger bonuses. Accountable indeed.

            On the other hand, public servants in government are directly accountable to the very voters who are feeling so much pain from this broken economy.

            By the way, how long have you been posting at MMFA, RightOn?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by southerngal (October 30, 2009 2:15 pm ET)
              1 10
              Public servants are accountable to voters? Really, that's funny because the last time I voted I didn't see their names on my ballot.

              You refuted not one thing I wrote because you can't. I know it stings whenever anyone criticizes any aspect of your sacred big government, but until you can competently rebut any of what I said instead of dumping on private enterprise, your posts are worthless.

              Your question is irrelevant and really none of your business.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by roundhouse (October 30, 2009 2:27 pm ET)
                7 1
                That's funny because, not only did I address exactly what you wrote, but the last time the country voted we held the bums to account and voted them out in historic fashion.

                You can avoid my question about your tenure here but it only makes look like you're hiding something. I only bring it up for the simple fact that I've been posting here since June 2006 and I don't recall ever seeing you post here for anything further back than about 9 months ago. Which is funny since I caught the tail end of the poster Sue, yet I see you calling the poster, DellDolly, "Sue" every time she pins you down on your inconsistencies. I think you are actually Tommy, just my opinion but I'm entitled to it. It just speaks to your lack of credibility, so keep dodging if you must.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by southerngal (October 30, 2009 2:38 pm ET)
                    8
                  I am talking about government bureaucrats, not legislators. And you know as well as I do how difficult incumbents are to vote out of office, so their performance is not always directly related to their time in office. At least we should be able to agree on that.

                  Not to feed your Tommy obsession anymore, I have answered that already in the past, look up my initial response if you are so concerned. I have been around for years, I posted several years ago for some time as you can check for yourself, I stopped for a long time but read consistently due to personal reasons which really are none of your business. So I remember Sue from way back and her numerous incarnations. Most recently she was LuvLuLu, now DellDolly. I don't care if you believe it or not, or whether you think I am Tommy or not.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by roundhouse (October 30, 2009 2:50 pm ET)
                    6  
                    Alright, fine.

                    Perhaps you can point, specifically, not these vague generalities, to some of that waste fraud and abuse in government you keep talking about.

                    I can point to the derivatives traders on Wall St., in their go-go-go consequence free habitat, who played Russian roulette with people's pensions and lost as an example of waste fraud and abuse. Can you do the same?
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by southerngal (October 30, 2009 2:59 pm ET)
                        7
                      I would never defend these cheats on Wall Street or their greed, they should be prosecuted and held accountable. And I agree with Obama that we have every right to restrain their salaries if they take public bailout money. Absolutely, waste and fraud was rampant. I will not argue with you on that.

                      As for the waste in government, as I said it is the way the system is set up for funding these programs. They have to spend every dime they get otherwise they will get less, it's common sense. So tell me, if you were given $100 to buy a shirt and were told in a month you would get more money to buy a shirt and at that point how much would be determined by what you need, would you only spend $50 or the full $100? There is no encouragement to be frugal or wise in your spending because you are not rewarded for doing so, in fact just the opposite.

                      I just want those who spend other people's money to be as responsible and careful as spending their own, or for a company that demands it, that is all.
                      Report Abuse
                    • Author by southerngal (October 30, 2009 3:08 pm ET)
                      1 6
                      Check out the summary of 2009 for a quick rundown > The Pig Book
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by roundhouse (October 30, 2009 5:33 pm ET)
                        4  
                        So no. You can't name anything. Color me surprised.

                        You do realize that that for every dollar of federal money spent, only 2 cents per dollar goes to bureaucracy? You also realize of course that 70% of all bureaucracies are created, just like the healthcare fight now, is due to public demand? You're dealing in myths. I defy you to find a private, for profit entity doing anything as efficiently as government. Bring it.

                        And 19.6 billion in so called pork from your link, whatever. That number (which is actually spent more efficiently than private industry) is a rain drop in the ocean compared to the overall budget.

                        Get back to me when ya got something. Until then you're just a poser.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by southerngal (October 30, 2009 5:42 pm ET)
                            5
                          So 19.6 billion dollars is just not enough fraud, waste or abuse for you? Fine, when you clean that up then you have a right to come and demand more from your fellow citizens, until then, you don't.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by loonz (October 30, 2009 5:46 pm ET)
                            4  
                            19.6 Billion is not a lot of money and it's subjective. Waste to you may not be waste to me.
                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by southerngal (October 30, 2009 5:52 pm ET)
                                5
                              "19.6 Billion is not a lot of money and it's subjective"

                              If big government liberals, who live to fund and grow every program with no accountability and satisfy every pork lobbyists dream, don't personally give you a big wet kiss every day of their elected lives, you are being shortchanged. They owe you big time.
                              Report Abuse
                              • Author by roundhouse (October 30, 2009 6:04 pm ET)
                                5  
                                "If big government liberals... "

                                Blah, blah, blah. You have nothing but vague generalities. Go away ya bs ideologue and come back when you have something substantial to contribute.
                                Report Abuse
                              • Author by mikehuck1976 (October 30, 2009 6:53 pm ET)
                                6  
                                "grow every program with no accountability"

                                See, there it is again. You again come up with this "no accountability" line. Who said there should be no accountability? The insurance companies have certainly not been held accountable for their lies year after year about the only way to keep costs in line is to keep healthcare private. Well, the time for their accountability has come. And government can certainly be held accountable in this country, if citizens pay attention. Ask all the Republicans that have been voted out of office over the last two election cycles.
                                Report Abuse
                          • Author by roundhouse (October 30, 2009 6:00 pm ET)
                            4 2
                            Like I thought. You cannot name a private company that runs as efficiently as government.

                            Go away loser.
                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by southerngal (October 30, 2009 6:03 pm ET)
                              2 6
                              Oh, you want an answer? Well, I will defer to Obama who stated it quite clearly when he said Fed Ex and UPS over the post office. So I guess you are calling him a loser too, take it up with him.

                              You pathetic little man.
                              Report Abuse
                              • Author by roundhouse (October 30, 2009 6:13 pm ET)
                                4  
                                Still nothing.
                                Report Abuse
                                • Author by southerngal (October 30, 2009 6:13 pm ET)
                                    5
                                  Don't come after me if you call Obama a liar.
                                  Report Abuse
                                • Author by southerngal (October 30, 2009 6:16 pm ET)
                                  1 5
                                  From President Barack Obama; "I mean, if you think about -- if you think about it, UPS and FedEx are doing just fine, right? No, they are. It's the Post Office that's always having problems"
                                  Report Abuse
                                  • Author by roundhouse (October 30, 2009 6:23 pm ET)
                                    5  
                                    God you're entertaining. I know your parsing ways all too well. Give the full context or go away.
                                    Report Abuse
                                    • Author by southerngal (October 30, 2009 6:30 pm ET)
                                        6
                                      Do you think I made it up? You mean you've never heard this before? In his own words
                                      Report Abuse
                                      • Author by roundhouse (October 30, 2009 9:37 pm ET)
                                        4  
                                        A 24 second snippet from a comment that took about a minute thirteen? One sentence out of three paragraphs and you think you made a point?

                                        pfffft.
                                        Report Abuse
                                    • Author by southerngal (October 30, 2009 6:47 pm ET)
                                      1 6
                                      So I am done with you today, Roundhouse. First you yelped that all I give are vague generalities and asked me for examples of waste and fraud in government, I gave 19.6 billion examples and you said that was a rain drop in an ocean.

                                      Then you asked for an example of a private company that runs as efficiently as the government, and not only did I give you two, as directly sourced from your Democratic POTUS, but you call me entertaining and a loser and want context.

                                      I gave what you asked for, and instead of being a man and acknowledging both, you whined and stomped your foot like a spoiled child because you were hoping I couldn't.

                                      Don't ask again is you refuse to accept the answers.
                                      Report Abuse
                                      • Author by roundhouse (October 30, 2009 8:42 pm ET)
                                        5  
                                        Had to fix dinner for the fam baby boy. I did look up the quote however and, dear lord you are so dishonest it must hurt to be such a liar.

                                        You still have given us nothing.

                                        That quote you used, yeah, it doesn't mean what you think it means.

                                        In the full quote, Obama is laying to rest the concerns of people who think government will leverage unfair advantage and choke out private competition in the insurance biz.

                                        "Now, I recognize, though, you make a legitimate -- you raise a legitimate concern. People say, well, how can a private company compete against the government? And my answer is that if the private insurance companies are providing a good bargain, and if the public option has to be self-sustaining -- meaning taxpayers aren't subsidizing it, but it has to run on charging premiums and providing good services and a good network of doctors, just like any other private insurer would do -- then I think private insurers should be able to compete. They do it all the time. (Applause.)

                                        I mean, if you think about -- if you think about it, UPS and FedEx are doing just fine, right? No, they are. It's the Post Office that's always having problems. (Laughter.)

                                        So right now you've got private insurers who are out there competing effectively, even though a lot of people get their care through Medicare or Medicaid or VA. So there's nothing inevitable about this somehow destroying the private marketplace, as long as -- and this is a legitimate point that you're raising -- that it's not set up where the government is basically being subsidized by the taxpayers, so that even if they're not providing a good deal, we keep on having to pony out more and more money. And I've already said that can't be the way the public option is set up. It has to be self-sustaining."

                                        You suck, you twisting little snake. I'm glad you're done with me. Liars are not people with whom I choose to traffic.
                                        Report Abuse
                                      • Author by retiredinsf (October 30, 2009 9:08 pm ET)
                                        2 7
                                        Did you really expect anything more from Roundhouse right ON? Other then the usual name calling?

                                        I refer you to Michael Savages "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder" and / or Glenn Becks "Arguing With Idiots". Both show how fruitless it is to debate libbies with facts and data.
                                        Report Abuse
                                        • Author by roundhouse (October 30, 2009 9:22 pm ET)
                                          5  
                                          Sure thing retiredinlalaville.

                                          I'm the loony one. Guess you posted your condescending missive before you took in the full context of the snipped quote that Tommy tried to pass off as proof that private interests are more efficient than government. No doubt the private sector does better at things like making tv's, shoes, cars and the like, but they don't hold a candle to government when it comes to administering essential public services.

                                          Now, I'm not saying there is no room for capitalism, hell, I'm all for free enterprise. It's just that government is better at administering services, like healthcare, that need not have a price tag.
                                          Report Abuse
                                        • Author by Brabantio (October 31, 2009 3:08 am ET)
                                          4  
                                          Did you really expect anything more from Roundhouse right ON? Other then the usual name calling?

                                          I refer you to Michael Savages "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder" and / or Glenn Becks "Arguing With Idiots". Both show how fruitless it is to debate libbies with facts and data.
                                          Can we expect more from Savage and Beck than the "usual name calling"?
                                          Report Abuse
                                  • Author by DellDolly (October 30, 2009 9:27 pm ET)
                                    4 1
                                    What a dishonest hack you are to take that comment by Obama out of context to claim that they do a better job than the Post Office does. They don't DO the same job as the USPS - not even close.

                                    And Obama's point was that the USPS doesn't force them out of business. Not that they run as efficiently as the USPS. FAIL.

                                    It's like comparing private schools who don't have to take everyone and who have much more parental involvement to public schools, and claiming that private schools are better at doing the same job as public schools!
                                    Report Abuse
                                    • Author by roundhouse (October 30, 2009 9:34 pm ET)
                                      4  
                                      But don't you just love the way he went straight to the personal attack when I asked him to provide the full context? He couldn't do it. He couldn't provide the full quote because he knew he would be exposed using such typical Republican mischaracterizations.

                                      Not that I don't use the personal attack, it's just I don't pretend to be a gentleman intellect like RO purports.


                                      Report Abuse
                                      • Author by DellDolly (October 30, 2009 9:45 pm ET)
                                        5  
                                        Well, he does have an ongoing problem with this. He takes comments out of context, and then tells us what they mean, and he does that to us and to liberals at large too. Even when it's explained to him that he took something out of context, or that what he is claiming was meant isn't what was meant, he sticks with his story.

                                        And then whines about the attacks he's feeling! And then claims that we're the ones who are off-base and whining about being taken out of context when we really weren't. All because he knows better than us what we were really saying, even when we have written words to back us up and all he has is his flawed interpretation!

                                        But that kind of consistency he exhibits in this realm isn't a good kind of pattern.

                                        Report Abuse
                                        • Author by roundhouse (October 31, 2009 12:30 am ET)
                                          4  
                                          RightOn's rhetorical tricks remind me of a phrase Anthony Weiner used when debating Betsy McCaughey on healthcare; "Debating you is like setting a pyromaniac loose in a strawman factory."
                                          Report Abuse
                                    • Author by roundhouse (October 30, 2009 9:35 pm ET)
                                      4  
                                      Good post, btw, DellDolly!
                                      Report Abuse
                • Author by foghornleghorn (October 30, 2009 7:10 pm ET)
                  5  
                  I don't recall ever seeing you post here for anything further back than about 9 months ago.

                  That's when Tommy morphed into RightOn.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by roundhouse (October 30, 2009 8:45 pm ET)
                    4  
                    That's what I was thinking. But this little liar says he's been posting here for years. Mind you he didn't say as who. I can't find any such RightOn poster years ago.
                    Report Abuse
          • Author by mk3872 (October 30, 2009 2:31 pm ET)
            6  
            Well, we took care of the Republican idiots that passed Medicare part D, blew up the debt with the Iraq war and handed-out huge tax breaks to the wealthy.

            So all is not lost ...
            Report Abuse
      • Author by Appleboy (October 30, 2009 3:04 pm ET)
        6  
        2x more expensive? That's funny, that's about how much more each man, woman, and child in this country pay than citizens in other advanced countries on health care. What's even more funny, is that all those other countries have some form of government involvement in their health care systems. What's even more funny is that even though they spend half what we do, they are somehow able to cover all their people. What's super hilarious is that their care is is as good if not better that what we have here. Boy, this health care stuff is a stitch!
        Report Abuse
        • Author by dexteritas0071418 (October 30, 2009 3:10 pm ET)
            7
          Instead of "man, woman, and child" it would be much more accurate if you just wrote "old people" spend much more than other advanced countries....who still send their rich old people here when they're dying.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Appleboy (October 30, 2009 4:22 pm ET)
            9  
            Let me repeat, on average we spend twice as much as other nations on health care. Are you denying that fact? For example in 2007, we spent about $7300 per capita vs $3600 for france.

            So how many rich old people have been sent to the U.S for health care. The total number I'm guessing is much closer to ZERO that it is "a lot".
            Report Abuse
            • Author by foghornleghorn (October 30, 2009 7:24 pm ET)
              5  
              And why does it cost twice as much in the US?

              In part because the insurance company vampires have to take their cut of the pie, which is estimated at 25-30 cents out of every dollar.

              I mean, they've gotta have lots of loose cash sitting around if they can spend $1 million a day to lobby against health reform. That shows me they're scared they can't hack it in a market with real competition. Their monopoly is about to come to an end and they are freaking out. Example: Betsy McCaughey.
              Report Abuse
        • Author by TX (October 30, 2009 4:20 pm ET)
          2 5
          Here are some articles dealing with the govenrment run health care in other countries....these are stories from all different publications in Great Britian with their National Health Service(NHS)....just reading the headlines (I believe these are all from this year alone) is troubling.

          Labour's secret plan to send overweight children to NHS fat camps
          http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6142249/Labours-secret-plan-to-send-overweight-children-to-NHS-fat-camps.html

          Kidney cancer patients denied life-saving drugs by NHS rationing body NICE
          http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1174592/Kidney-cancer-patients-denied-life-saving-drugs-NHS-rationing-body-NICE.html

          Girl, 3, has heart operation cancelled three times because of bed shortage
          http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article6147701.ece

          Cancer survivor confronts the health secretary on 62-day wait
          http://news.scotsman.com/health/Cancer-survivor-confronts-the-.5095291.jp

          Children being failed by health system, says head of watchdog
          http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/mar/21/healthcare-commission-report-children

          Disabled children wait up to two years for wheelchairs
          http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/mar/04/wheelchair-wait-children

          Top doctors slam NHS drug rationing
          http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article4597174.ece

          Lung patients 'condemned to death as NHS withdraws their too expensive drugs'
          http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-544112/Lung-patients-condemned-death-NHS-withdraws-expensive-drugs.html

          I am not denying that reform needs to change -- but the way it's being done I disagree with. Where are the talks about tort reform, or allowing insurance companies to compete against each other state-to-state?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Appleboy (October 30, 2009 4:33 pm ET)
            8  
            And yet we rank 37th according to WHO in 2000, compared to France #1, Japan #10, UK #18, Canada #30, etc. I'm not saying WHO is the final word, but I would think it carries some weight.

            In regards to your list, no system is perfect. But here is a list for the U.S:

            1) 46 million have no insurance
            2) 45,000 die from lack of health insurance
            3) We spend twice that of everone else (I can't repeat this fact often enough).
            Report Abuse
            • Author by srichardson (October 31, 2009 11:12 am ET)
              4  
              What the alerted fails to mention is that disabled kids in the US who are not insured don't get wheelchairs. And if they do they are the bottom of the line.
              Report Abuse
          • Author by loonz (October 30, 2009 5:02 pm ET)
            5  
            We can all search and cherry pick articles to put a country's health care system in a bad light. The point I and others try to make is that even though other health care systems are far from perfect, they're better than our system.

            Also, your first sentence says "Here are some articles dealing with the government run health care in other countries" and you proceed to only posts stories involving Britain's NHS which is a socialized system. As far as I know, no one here is pushing for socialized medicine. We want a single-payer system.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by DellDolly (October 30, 2009 9:39 pm ET)
              4  
              Yeah, I don't think that alerted is a poster you should rely upon. I suspect a concern troll.
              Report Abuse
          • Author by mikehuck1976 (October 30, 2009 5:37 pm ET)
            5  
            What do any of those articles you posted have to do with tort reform or allowing insurance companies to compete against each other state-to-state? Do really wanna compare healthcare in the UK to America? Or which system ties the doctors' hands? Or which system creates healthier individuals? Of course not, you lose all of those arguments. The UK has had socialized medicine for over 50 years and they are much healthier than we are at much less of a cost.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by DellDolly (October 30, 2009 9:34 pm ET)
            5  
            Tort reform will only lower costs a tiny percentage - it's a rightwing myth that tort reform will do much at all.

            The only thing it does is unfairly limit damages and hurt trial lawyers. It helps shoddy businesses and businessmen.

            And that's why the Republicans like to push tort reform. They don't care about people hurt by medical malpractice - they care about hurting lawyers and helping businessmen.

            We've figured it out. The CBO has figured it out. We aren't indulging your dishonesty any more.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by jeffro (October 30, 2009 11:06 pm ET)
            5  
            I am not denying that reform needs to change -- but the way it's being done I disagree with. Where are the talks about tort reform, or allowing insurance companies to compete against each other state-to-state?
            Where is the Republican bill that addresses these problems? Oh.They don't have one?
            Report Abuse
      • Author by Appleboy (October 30, 2009 3:06 pm ET)
        5  
        2x more expensive? That's funny, that's about how much more each man, woman, and child in this country pay than citizens in other advanced countries on health care. What's even more funny, is that all those other countries have some form of government involvement in their health care systems. What's even more funny is that even though they spend half what we do, they are somehow able to cover all their people. What's super hilarious is that their care is is as good if not better that what we have here. Boy, this health care stuff is a stitch!
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Appleboy (October 30, 2009 3:08 pm ET)
          4  
          I posted this in reply to 'alerted' claim that a government sponsored program will cost us double what we pay now. I'm not sure why it put my post here.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by mikehuck1976 (October 30, 2009 3:31 pm ET)
        7  
        "With the government running it, it will probably turn out to be 2x as expensive and we'll all end up paying for it in the end. What a joke!" - alerted

        That is actually what happened when the brains from your side of the aisle told us 15 years ago the only way to save costs was to keep health insurance private. Guess what happened to the cost of health insurance over the last 15 years?

        You would think you right-wingers would at least find a new tune to hum. Government involvement (whether it be socialized medicine like in Britain or a hybrid single-payer system like in France) is inevitable. Just as are most of the fights the right-wing is still waging today. Gays will eventually get equal rights, there will eventually be universal health insurance, Medicare is going nowhere, and neither is MedicAid. You would think you guys would actually like to be on the right side of history for once. But alas, even when your ranks are only 20% you still think you are the majority. Fox News and Limbaugh with their self-perpetuating political delusion that the American people are behind you has done you no favors politically. Enjoy the wilderness.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by retiredinsf (October 31, 2009 10:42 am ET)
            5
          Er, mikehuck 1976, you seem to have your numbers reversed. Polls say only 20% of libbies ID themselfs as libbies while conservatives are double at 40%

          And, Oh Oh. Looks like the left is in trouble in Congress as well. Republicans have been winning in the polls since June! Read it and weep.

          http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/generic_congressional_ballot

          And here is Obama at 51% while Bush was at a whopping 88% after their first year in office. In fact, the Messiahs approval rating is the worst of any president in recent memory.

          http://www.gallup.com/poll/politics.aspx

          And don’t blame me, I’m just the messenger who is here to tell you and MMFA how far out of touch with normal folks you are.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by srichardson (October 31, 2009 11:17 am ET)
            4  
            Those polls are flawed in the way people interpret liberal vs conservative. Take me for example. I'd probably label myself conservative in part bc of my some of my views. The media has dubbed liberals as evil beings who believe in killing babies and letting men marry animals. If the public had an honest definition of the difference between liberal vs conservative the polls would look different. And most people who do label themselves conservative do so for a single issue such as abortion. Many of the 40% who claim to be conservative obviously want healthcare reform and a public option since polls also show the majority of Americans want the public option.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by roundhouse (October 31, 2009 11:42 am ET)
              5  
              True. Don't you love retired's misleading 88% approval for W. after his first year? Now let's see, here. What happened 8 months into his first term that could have spiked that number so high?

              Hmmm? I wonder?

              On the other hand, Barack is doing good work, especially in regard to our reputation as a global neighbor, but he is failing miserably at telling the people the story of how we got to the point where all this deficits spending is needed in the first place. He isn't placing the blame where it needs to placed and he isn't giving the moral reason why healthcare should be a right. He has put quite a few Democratic seats in jeopardy because he won't force onto the defensive those conservative market fundamentalists who allowed the economic extremists on Wall St. to gamble away our 401K's and pensions.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by DellDolly (October 31, 2009 8:33 pm ET)
              4  
              They've actually polled people to ask them their individual stances on issues that typically divide conservatives and liberals, and there are really very few people who are "conservative" on all things. Most are confused by the term, and turned off/scared by the boogeyman that the right has made of the term "liberal".

              The latest WSJ/NBC poll I saw had Republicans at 17%!

              On healthcare, Obama is 43 positive, 48 negative, a little better than he's been doing. The reason his negatives are so high is because people on the left want him to have done even more.

              Then there's the Republicans in Congress. They're 23 positive and 64 negative.

              Obama's a -5. Republicans are a -41. Negative 41!!!

              So don't even try to tell us how "popular" conservative political belief is. It's not true.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by retiredinsf (November 01, 2009 8:24 am ET)
                  3
                Heh Heh. I knew I would get these types of responses from you libbies. You guys just can not handle the truth, can ys?

                BTW: Be sure to watch FOX News Sunday with Chris Wallace today. He will have a special guest I know everyone on this Board will love to see.

                2BTW: I asked each kid last night if they were liberal and if they said yes they all got an extra candy bar. I knew they needed to help feed their parents.

                Report Abuse
                • Author by Appleboy (November 01, 2009 11:01 am ET)
                  3  
                  Could a nation truly 40% conservative and 20% liberal ever have elected Obama? And don't suggest that the 40% is a result of Obama policy creating more conservatives. The 40% conservative stat has been fairly constant for about 40 years now. It's nothing new. So if you want to rejoice in your victory in the word branding war ("liberal" = evil), conservatives win. Congratulations. Now back to the world of reality....
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by loonz (November 01, 2009 12:14 pm ET)
                    2  
                    Yeah. A lot of people are afraid to say they're liberal or have this bass ackward opinion of what a liberal is. Kerry was afraid to say he was a liberal in 2004 and Obama largely avoided that question because the opposition was busy trying to brand him a socialist. The better way to find out what percentage of the country is liberal/conservative/moderate is to poll on individual issues.
                    Report Abuse
                • Author by Jeremy Danials (November 01, 2009 2:42 pm ET)
                  2  
                  What I find funny is that you were completely debunked, and instead of trying to offer up proof of your claims, you simply declare yourself right.

                  Reminds me of Bush during his "Mission Accomplished" speech.

                  You have no point, just conservative talking points with no fact or merit. Then, just like your hero Darth Cheney, you refuse to admit you have been defeated. I can handle the truth, and the truth is that you are wrong. Bush had those numbers because we had over 3000 Americans die in a terrorist attack. We had suppered a national tragedy, and the country unified. Then, he dropped the ball, and his presidency ended with a whopping 16% approval rating! Now, if we liberals are such a minority, why was that number so low? It wasn't us, right? I mean, we don't matter, right?

                  Oh, and BTW, the liberals you gave extra candy to last night only needed it because you sold out our manufacturing base to India, China, and Mexico for slave labor, or as close to it as you can get. I shall laugh at you when healthcare reform passes, and then we finally get rid of NAFTA. Then, maybe, you will see that you are wrong.

                  ...but I doubt it.
                  Report Abuse
      • Author by carlileb5935 (October 31, 2009 2:47 am ET)
        4  
        I hope all our state representatives vote AGAINST this bill!!

        I hope they do too. It means the end of the Republican Party in those states.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Doug-Life (October 30, 2009 3:29 pm ET)
      2  
      I guess we'll just have to see.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by opus15b (October 30, 2009 3:32 pm ET)
      4  
      What is the right's fascination with the number pages or the cost per word? I think that they are so concerned about it because they are functionally illiterate.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by DellDolly (October 30, 2009 9:50 pm ET)
        4  
        They want to highlight the number of pages for the citizens in the USA who are sure that the government is too big. Those citizens are going to think that a very long bill means more government involvement, rather than relate to the fact that health care is very involved. If we were just going to single payer, it'd be a lot simpler. If we hadn't tried to get the buy-in from a lot of people, it'd be a lot simpler.

        And those same people don't realize how long a regular bill is. They also don't know that many pages have very minimal amts of info on them.

        It's all to scare the people here who think govt is way too big, and make them think that this bill is something to be scared of just because it's big.

        It's a dishonest argument. Tell me something I didn't know about any argument that righty's make.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by MiddleMan (October 31, 2009 2:35 am ET)
         
      So, by using the Fox and Politico method of mathematics, it means the following:
      * Hank Paulsen's three-page request a year ago for $780 Billion was better because it was smaller physically?
      Three pages certainly don't weigh more than "20 pounds." Right, Steve Doocy?
      * Or, if you took Paulsen's 2008 request -- without any strings attached -- for $780 Billion, it cost us $260 Billion per page.
      * Or, If you want to go by Fox's fairness standard -- at 200 words per page (600 words), which is probably way less than how many were in Paulsen's request -- it would have $1.3 Billion per word.
      * And, none of it was paid for, unlike the Health Care Bill.
      Did Steve Doocy and the rest of the Fox fact twisters point these facts out last year? If I had held my breath waiting, I would have expired long ago.
      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.