Let them eat applesauce: Right-wing media mock the uninsured
Right-wing media figures have mocked Democrats' descriptions of hardships faced by their constituents who lack health insurance, including a story Rep. Louise Slaughter told about a woman who wore dentures that previously belonged to her dead sister. For example, Rush Limbaugh said, "So if you don't have any teeth, so what? What's applesauce for?"
Media conservatives ridicule the uninsured
Limbaugh: "What's wrong with using a dead person's teeth? Aren't the Democrats big into recycling?" Responding to Slaughter's account, which he called the "sob story of the day, Limbaugh stated:
LIMBAUGH: You know I'm getting so many people -- this Louise Slaughter comment on the dentures? I'm getting so many people -- this is big. I mean, that gets a one-time mention for a laugh, but there are people out there that think this is huge because it's so stupid. I mean, for example, well, what's wrong with using a dead person's teeth? Aren't the Democrats big into recycling? Save the planet? And so what? So if you don't have any teeth, so what? What's applesauce for? Isn't that why they make applesauce?
Limbaugh previously told a caller who could not afford the $6,000 it would cost to treat a broken wrist that he "shouldn't have broken [his] wrist."
Beck mocks Slaughter's story: "I've read the Constitution ... I didn't see that you had a right to teeth." On his February 26 radio show, Glenn Beck played an audio clip of Slaughter's account then said, "I am wearing George Washington's dentures right now. I'm wearing his teeth right now." He later added, "I just like wearing dead people's teeth. But in America -- I'm sorry, I didn't know that that was -- I've read the Constitution before. I didn't see that you had a right to teeth." Echoing Limbaugh's remarks the previous day, Beck stated, "The environmentalists should be all over Slaughter. 'How dare you say that?' My gosh, they're just recycling. They're just reusing."
Beck sidekick uses baby voice to mock letters Obama receives. On Beck's February 25 radio show, co-host Steve "Stu" Burguiere stated that Obama "gets 10 letters, Glenn, every night." Co-host Pat Gray asked, "From 2-year-old girls?" Then, one of the co-hosts started speaking in a baby's voice: "I have no health care, Mr. Pwesident, and I have no feet and no tonsils because doctors took 'em out."
Conservative blogger Pamela Geller linked to an audio clip of the segment, which she wrote was "[d]a best! the funniest thang evuh!"
Gateway Pundit attacks Slaughter's "sappy lib sob story of the day, hands down." On his Gateway Pundit blog, Jim Hoft linked to a video clip of Slaughter telling the story about the dentures under the headline, "Horror! Lib Dem Claims Her Constituent Wore Dead Sister's Teeth (Video)." After declaring the account the "sappy lib sob story of the day, hands down," Hoft wrote: "Will Obamacare buy me glasses and contacts? Will Obamacare buy me a gold tooth in the front of my mouth with a little heart on it?"
Ingraham: "Louise Slaughter won the Olympics of sob stories." On Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, radio host Laura Ingraham said she "liked the dueling sob stories, OK? One Democrat was trying to outdo the next on the sob story about how rotten our health care system is. Louise Slaughter won the Olympics of sob stories by saying one of her constituents had to wear her sister's dentures. OK? It got so bad with the health care system." She later added, "You had Harry Reid on the cleft palate with his -- I mean, the whole thing was ridiculous."
Fox Nation labels anecdote "Summit Insanity." From The Fox Nation, accessed February 25:
See my comment below to see a reply to your predictable rebuttal post.
How would the left react if this were a summit headed by Bush on the funding of Iraq and some conservative Congressperson talked about a woman in Iraq who had her child kidnapped by those we are fighting against? It may or may not be mocked as nobody sinks quite as low as Rush Limbaugh, but it would still be below the belt.
What? When all you're doing is stating facts, which is what was going on here, that's not manipulation. The stories illustrate the problems with the healthcare system -- which (theoretically, anyway) is supposed to be about healing people. If it's not accomplishing that, then there's a problem that should be addressed. The GOP and these jackasses quoted above don't like it because they have no valid rebuttal.
For certain political issues, maybe, but I have yet to see the 'good' side of our health care system trotted in front of Congress. Perhaps that's the because the winners in this situation are the health care companies who are walking away with billions after raising premiums, denying coverage and rescinding policies. Doesn't really tug at the heartstrings the same way, does it?
This is anecdotal. Care to provide facts?
I can answer for Tommy, though. He's probably thinking of the people who may have to pay a little more in taxes in order to keep thousands of people from dying or going bankrupt.
Nah! Facts are for liberals. Right ON can just make smears like liberals argue from emotion. He isn't required to use facts. Only the other side.
Foghornleghorn thinks that conservatives have to prove that there will be suffering if we pass the healthcare bill. HAHA Nope, you are right, unicorns and rainbows.
Maybe small business owners who have to provide health insurance or be penalized, maybe it'll be worse off for them. Maybe it will be worse for insurance companies who HAVE to cover the smoking, diabetic, alchoholic, and then rely on government subsidies to cover his expenses. There must be unicorns and rainbows in your future because it will have to be magical time indeed if this healthcare reform actually does what progctologists say it will.
This is a little off topic but have you ever been to Africa, South America, Eastern Europe, Asia....why don't we get the millions of people without teeth there dentures. Or do you think those people don't deserve it because they aren't American? Or do you think it must be impossible because there are too many, we couldn't afford it? Why don't we help them?
I can tell you why, we can't afford it. Yet you want us to pay more taxes, to buy dentures for a lady in the United States? You want us to pay money we don't have to ensure everyone has braces, and acne cream. Print more money James has halitosis!
Sad story indeed if its true, but you guys have misplaced your anger. You should be angry with her family and friends for disrespecting her by making her wear her sisters dentures.
I've never heard such naive and silly arguements.
Sure, everyone gets health care, but not necessarilly quickly. The wait can be deadly.
I also think Right On's point is that while stories do put faces to a story they can just the same manipulate the story, too. This is true on both sides, and one thing lacking from the responses critiquing his comments is any substance on why this woman fully demonstrates the problem.
Before you jump on me for not seeing the "truth" of her example, let me ask if anyone knows her full story or just the bit presented by the Congresswoman. In other words, there is likely more to the story that changes its meaning significantly.
The health care companies.. 40% are non-profit, just like mmfa. The rates increase because of the "over testing" done because medical malpractice insurance is through the roof with frivolous claims. The "litigation lawyers" make FAR more than they are admitting... Why not attack them???
Something does need to be done regarding the pre-existing conditions and the denial of coverage, it's plain wrong...
Also something needs to be done about the 12-20 million illegal aliens mooching off the emergency rooms... Wonder how much getting rid of that or "charging the countries of origin" would save... I wonder why we never, EVER consider this?
I have a thought. Somehow those that feel entitled think they're going to get free "health care" at the expense of others...
I was really touched by obamas "cancer" victim that "WORKED FOR HIS CAMPAIGN"... with no health insurance, oh and she died... and fought the cancer during the whole campaign.
Well why wasn't she working at a job with HEALTH insurance? why did she have health insurance if she WORKED for HIS campaign???
So lets say she volunteers for obamas campaign while I'm at work paying taxes to subsidize HER VOLUNTEERING.. How's that work...???
It is you hand-out, cry-ass, progressives who have no rebuttal. Where was her family? Does her family expect somebody else to take care of her? Why should someone else take care of her? That is the biggest failure of america, propagated by progressive policy, taking responsibility away from individuals and families.
Sorry but this IS an emotional issue. and if you think injecting emotion into the debate is manipulation, then what do you think about the publikuns using scare tactics to try to turn people off to the bill?
Kind of like when Bush 41 used the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to testify about witnessing Iraqi soldiers pulling babies out of incubators and letting them die on the floor? Or how about the publikun congressman using one of his staffer's baby to say that she doesn't want to have to pay our debts?
My point stands.
and my point stands.
But to use rightON's every man for himself mantra, it's tough tooties for this woman. She should be able to pull herself up by her bootstraps and get another job.
What this has to do with the current health care reform bill, though, I don't know. People will still have Medicare and Medicaid, people will still be covered by insurance. Insurance companies will still seek out ways to avoid paying legitimate bills; therefore, medical billing specialists will still be necessary.
Your friend's employer was lying to her.
My friend's employers was not lying to her. If you are too naive to think that there are not "sob" stories on the other side of issues you endorse then you are the one who needs an education. Fast.
>>I know liberals argue first from emotion.
So how does he respond to Bintx's argument? With this gem:
>>You're just irritated that you couldn't "educate" or convince me the other day on the spousal abuse thread, let it go bintx.
Yes, what a logical, non-emotional argument.
>>I know liberals argue first from emotion.
When I point out the irony and contradiction in this generalization, he responds with this:
>>As I said below, this is above your pay grade. Don't try.
Do you really think some 6th grade taunt is non-emotional and logical?
Well, if she loses her job, at least she won't DIE.
Her boss: Ho, ho, hey, hey, how many people did you kill today? We need that information for your productivity bonus.
It is this narrowmindedness that bugs me. This is not to say that the cause of healthcare is not valid, only that the fixation on just a few stories really misses the rest of the story.
Everyone seems to think there needs to be adjustments to our health care system, but the current proposal will have consequences that will be significant.
Sounds like that boss is getting ready to out source and using the Health care bill as the false basis of it.
How 'bout that odometer rollback law? A real job killer, huh? Lots of mechanics and used car salesmen let go. Boo stinkin' hoo.
This from right ON, one of the most illogical posters to ever comment. Right wingers just don't get irony.
By the way, using anecdotes is not arguing from emotion when the facts back them up. You know, the fact that the US is ranked 17th in the world in health care and we pay double what other nations pay. Those facts which we keep having to remind you of.
There's your answer.
And yet another either-or-fallacy. Working rights, voting rights, many rights were gained by people who were angry at their conditions. That doesn't mean that their anger over-ruled their logic.
That is silly to say. There were many people during those debates that did not think they "were the right thing to do". You completely ignored funnymanpants' point anyway. He was saying that the anger towards the lack of voting rights (for example), propelled the debate and spurred the creation of things like the Voters Rights Act, Civil Right Act, etc. You're telling me everyone in the '60's agreed with the idea of civil rights?
funnymanpants said that emotion was a factor in some important decisions. You seem to believe that it's all or nothing. It's clearly too complicated for you to understand, not him. Try to understand that there are shades of gray in this world.
As someone else said, stop digging yourself in deeper.
Nor do I want politicians who haul our private sufferers to make a point, because there is always another private sufferer on the other side who doesn't have the same manipulative politician exploiting their circumstances. It is unfair.
The medical billing woman is not a private sufferer. Got any private sufferers or is this another intellectually dishonest argument?
Do really want to fully flush out the use of emotion in political discourse? Emotion has its place, but it also has limitations. For example, how do you think Hitler was able to grab control? Anger against the Jews, and then a sense of duty to be German. It was all about emotion.
As I said, emotion has its place in politics, but policy must be supported by fully rational thoughts. To be fully rational, you must consider all sides of an issue. You can't just rely on "people don't have health insurance" to make policy. You have to look at why people don't, options to maximize coverage without destryong anything else. You have to consider the effects of the policy that go beyond giving everyone insurance.
It is not easy. Emotion is.
That is an either-or fallacy. If there is only anecdotal evidence, then the argument is weak. When there is anecdotal evidence backed up by mountains of evidence, it is fair to bring up the anecdotes.
If you have the mountain of evidence the anecdotes are unnecessary. Duh.
That would be true if the average American was capable of complex thought. IMHO, that is not the case. Most Americans think in soundbites and need the anecdotal evidence spoon-fed to them in order to understand the evidence.
I think it was actually 37th
Randy
We don't have the highest life expectancy, lowest infant mortality, the highest doctor/patient or nurse/patient ratio, etc. The only thing we are best at is spending money on it. We spend more money but get less return on the investment than other nations.
How about all of the times every president in my lifetime has dragged out some unfortunate to help plead whatever cause he was pursuing at the time?
But then I got to your 2nd paragrah.
Perhaps you don't recall (and no, it wasn't a representative making the statements) but something somewhat like what you described did happen before Gulf War I...
And I do recall that instance and I also recall by the time the lie was exposed - it was so long after the fact no one really cared anymore.
You made it a left/right thing by posting that. As I said - I agree with your 1st paragraph. Had you left it at that, I'd be all on board. I don't like approaching problems, especially complex ones using anecdotal evidence.
And now you bring up Terry Schaivo? So the example I gave (which really happened) was based on a lie and the Schaivo grandstanding was bascially based on a lie as well. Thanks for pointing out how the cons make stuff up for emotional manipulation purposes while the libs use actual facts from actual peoples lives.
The anecdotal evidence that the left generally uses is reasonable and appropriate. When the right does it, it's generally inappropriate and manipulative.
Meanwhile, there are REAL cases, MILLIONS OF THEM, of people suffering without adequate healthcare due to a lack of insurance. MILLIONS of stories are NOT anecdotes. They represent MILLIONS reason why we have to reform the system.
Randy
don't we have medicare and medicade in this country?
I suppose you also think obama was truthful with his "I knew a campaign worker, for MY campaign that fought caner and died" blah blah.. blah... Ask your self this.
1. assuming she was a volunteer. How did she have time to work for the obama campaign but NOT have a job, perhaps even a job with insurance.
2. If she WORK (paid) for the obama campaign, why DIDN'T she have employer paid insurance?
You made it a left/right thing by posting that. As I said - I agree with your 1st paragraph. Had you left it at that, I'd be all on board. I don't like approaching problems, especially complex ones using anecdotal evidence.
And now you bring up Terry Schaivo? So the example I gave (which really happened) was based on a lie and the Schaivo grandstanding was bascially based on a lie as well. Thanks for pointing out how the cons make stuff up for emotional manipulation purposes while the libs use actual facts from actual peoples lives.
>>I know liberals argue first from emotion.
And now writes:
>>Whining that the other side is worse, blah blah. Get over it.
As I said, the right wingers just don't understand irony.
You can't understand the distinction, too bad.
>>I know liberals argue first from emotion.
But now writes:
>>You are too simple to understand it, that's all. Arguments are filled with emotion, from all of us.
So if all arguments are filled with emotion, then conservatives also must argue from emotion!
>>Policy discussion should be from facts, not emotion.
Either or fallacy, as well as moving target argument.
So you wanna run away from your framing this as "if the right did this the left would be outraged" in your usual mind reading manner?
Too partisan? I have stated now on three different occassions that I agree with your premise in the 1st paragraph. You are clearly unable to understand anything much more complex than a cheese sandwich.
I don't care who does it - I don't want problems, especially complex ones, being addressed through anecdotes. Like that nutbar lying Shona Holmes.
Now I'm done.
That the libs do things he wouldn't do
Real-life appeals to emotion
Challenges free market devotion
Libertarians can't rent a clue.
Ah, I see. It's the lawmakers' fault. They left the right-wing professional liars with no choice but to mock these people. The lawmakers are the ones we point the finger at if these people are offended by such mockery.
What you feel the same way if it were done by those you disagree with on an issue you disagree with? I doubt it.
I love how liberals always try to compare the two. Not in any ballpark.
We have no control over the Limbaughs of the world, we do not elect them, they are not accountable to us. Of course they crap they do is shameless and poisonous, but outside of offering up another opinion, we can't throw them out of office. And we don't live by their laws.
Big difference.
Actually, we do. We can boycott publicly their shows, contact the local stations that carry them and make our opinions known (see: Public File), call in and jam the lines when their screeners refuse to put a call through, and directly contact their sponsors with objections to the views presented.
Remember, broadcast media are basically entertainment between commercials.
They don't, and they won't.
Liar...
You started the whole right/left frame up thread.
If I am ever that protective over a political ideological mindset, I need my mommy to time out me.
Still can't admit YOU brought the whole left right paradigm into this and when called on it - you deny it. You are a liar, plain and simple.
You say you agree with me, then broadly condemn it, not cherry pick it based on your party loyalty.
I have done no such thing in this thread. Can't stop lying, can you?
The American people need to understand that voting Republican is NOT going to improve the affordability and accessibility of health care for them!!!
>>I know liberals argue first from emotion.
and
>>You are way too partisan sensitive to have an adult discussion with on this. Whining that the other side is worse, blah blah. Get over it.
But now writes:
>>Huh? If I wanted a talking point from the DNC, well, wait a minute, ok right, I would come here for that.
What a logical, non-emotional argument.
The affordability will continue to rise, and the accessibility will simply shift, maybe not too much...
As far as emotional manipulation, what about Michael Steele's "$1 million is not a lot of money," meant to make us feel sorry for millionaires? Or on Faux News Saturday morning business shows, "$250,000 a year doesn't go that far." BOO BLANKING HOO. I'm crying for those poor mistreated people try to get by on only $250,000. What about $50,000, chum? Not a peep about them on Faux. Or the Dallas Morning News story in 2001 about a wealthy Plano couple during the First Bush Recession who lamented, "It's been terrible. We had to let our gardener go." Oh, the humanity! When you wingers stop using emotion, then you can lecture us. Until then, stop the hypocrisy. Just makes you look silly and even more irrelevant and detached from reality.
Let's see, how did I react when Bush senior was trying to convince Congress to send our military to get Saddam out of Kuwait by standing a young girl before Congress to tell them about stolen incubators. Do you remember this?
"Nayireh, a young Kuwaiti girl, who told the U.S. Congress that she had witnessed invading Iraqi soldiers barge into a Kuwaiti hospital and steal the equipment. With luminous eyes and a compelling presence, she told of her horror as she watched the menacing soldiers dump babies out of incubators. Months later, when the war was a distant memory, reporters learned that “Nayireh” was actually the daughter of a Kuwaiti emir, that doctors in Kuwait could not corroborate her testimony, that in fact the supposedly stolen incubators had been placed carefully in storage during the invasion, and that the Hill and Knowlton Public Relations firm had rehearsed with the young woman how to give apparently false testimony effectively."
Both sides do it and both sides are wrong.
Would someone please find a way to irreversably humiliate Limbaugh with an underage-looking undercover cop?
Oh, and holograms of Beck's mother reminding him how disappointmented she is with him.
Paging Mr. O'Keefe?
Jesus: Suffer the Little Children to Come Unto Me
Rush, Beck, Ingraham: F@#$ 'em
Those people will be casting votes in favor of their own death or financial ruin.
Another example of why they should just say anti-abortion not Pro Life.I have seen little evidence of a pro-life agenda from the far right.They are pro-war(even when unnecessary),pro-dealth penalty(even with a flawed justice system that has probably executed innocent people already),anti healthcare reform( even though people die every day due to lack of insurance coverage),against social programs(even ones that promote personal responsibility)for people born into and living in poverty thru no fault of their own,and against any type of cgun control despite all the group murders by unstable people that should not have access to a gun.
These insensitive, unfeeling media facsists should be barred for their never ending hate speech!Free speech still should have some standards for facts and appropriateness if its broadcast to millions of people!!!!
I find it interesting that conservatives support for an issue stems solely from personal experience. Take Cheney's stance on gay marriage. Dick Cheney is in FAVOR of gay marriage! Why? Because he has a gay daughter. If he didn't have a gay daughter, 100% chance he's against gay marriage.
In other words, conservatives are bereft of empathy. The world is as big as their immediate family and friends. Others are merely chattel there to flesh out the world around them. YOU AND I ARE BASICALLY NOTHING MORE THAN GHOSTS TO DICK CHENEY AND ALL CONSERVATIVES...until, of course, they can use some of those "ghosts" for a photo op.
Randy
Don't belied this anecdote? The California president of Blue Cross said that healthy people were dropping coverage (she didn't sat it was because they couldn't afford it, but that is why many people are in financial distress in California.)
I'm in a relatively affluent area where a starter home is well over $550,000. I ask many small business owners and local trades people I meet. I have a CPA who noted many of his clients have done the same as their small business revenues have dropped over 25%.
I think the Republicans cheering squad is going to tick off people and independents who say enough is enough. THis is now how Americans treat each other!
So why oh why would the small business revenue drop? How about tax increases, OVER-regulation, price of FUEL (this is a big one), I'm sure you could come up with one or two yourself...
BTW - California was in this EXACT same mess when Grey Davis was recalled in favor of another left of center "republican"...
Tell mw, how is it that someone with a 5,000 dollar per month expendable income can buy a home with a 4,000 dollar per month mortgage (figures are for illustration ONLY). Then when the mortgage goes UP and the price of gas goes UP and we're suddenly paying %,500 dollars per month a republican issue?... Remember the OWNERS of Golden West and World Savings, the sandlers, are vehement liberals AND the "inventors" of sub-prime lending.... "BIG OBAMA SUPPORTERS TOO"
Some years ago, I decided to use three words to explain why so many dyed-in-the-wool conservatives say and do the things they do.
You can use this phrase kind of like the old "Between the bed sheets" joke, for example: "Why can't they see how this is affecting so many families in America?"
They
Don't
Care
If you take away from even these quotes that they don't care, that's quite shallow. Everyone should have insurance. If you don't have insurance and something happens, well, you made a poor decision then, didn't you? Now, that doesn't mean we shouldn't use voluntary charity, but we can't insure every single person with charity or taxes alone!
Glenn in particular was mocking Obama's comment that it might be more profitable to take someone's tonsils out rather than treat the sore throat, never mind that separate doctors would get paid for either procedure, he wasn't mocking the uninsured.
The point most of these quotes were trying to make (taken out of context here) is the healthcare bill only wants to reduce prices, not costs, while at the same time increasing demand by 30 million people without increasing supply (basic econ says that's a recipe for disaster). Just because you subsidize prices doesn't mean you can treat more patients, or treat someone more efficiently with less money (like the cosmetic surgery industry has managed to do, since it isn't covered by insurance). Additionally, it mocks comprehensive healthcare coverage akin to homeowners insurance that covers everything from leaky faucets to yearly replacement air filters, issued even if the house is burning down to the ground because of old electrical wiring - when the real answer is more out-of-pocket payments especially for checkups (and maybe checkups are mandated in your insurance contract) and a return to catastrophic coverage for unexpected emergencies only, the way insurance is supposed to work. Insurance, by definition, isn't supposed to cover things you know you will need.
I've probably botched something here but I don't question either side's noble intentions.
Supply of what?
but we can't insure every single person with charity or taxes alone!
Other countries do. Are you saying we're not as good as Canada or most European nations?
while at the same time increasing demand by 30 million people without increasing supply
30 million more people won't be covered under the current bill. It's closer to 3 million. Again, what do you mean by supply?
I've probably botched something here
You do get bonus points for self-awareness.
Our healthcare is the best quality in the world. As far as I can tell, everyone agrees on that. Our method of paying for it, however, is sending both costs and prices are out of control, largely because consumers don't pay the bills, insurance companies or government does. Same deal elsewhere, and elsewhere (England especially) costs are out of control. Off the top of my head, the NHS is the fourth largest employer in the world (a million employees for 50 million citizens), and half of it is administrative bureaucrats. Europe as a whole, I don't know if you have seen, isn't doing too well right now. (Canada I haven't heard much out of so I suspect not awful, but then again their economy is largely tied to ours being our #1 trade partner, when the United States sneezes, Canada gets a cold sort of thing)
That's not how it works. There are a lot of entities that like the way things are because they can make huge profits. We need to get rid of the profit motive when we're taking about someone's health.
If you're rich you can have the best health care in the world but most of us are not rich.
No one is doing well right now except maybe China.
You assume that wealth is a zero sum game, but that's not true, voluntary exchange by definition produces wealth for both people and society. We want more profits, not less. You are assuming that profit is something insurance companies could forgo, but it doesn't work that way. Prices are set before profits by on supply and demand, profit is auxiliary. Profit then is used to adjust supply accordingly. If there are losses, supply will go down, if there are profits, supply will go up. This is called the law of supply. If we eliminate profits, supply will decrease, and prices will go up! When prices go up, fewer people will be served (the law of demand). Clearly this isn't what you want.
The goal of any healthcare reform must be increase supply, once we do that, we can give healthcare to more people, at a lower price. It's that simple.
Face facts: healthcare reform isn't Obama's Waterloo, it's the GOP's. Passage of ANY bill will fasten the GOP into the minority party for 20 years and you and the other hacks know it. Pure politics, no policy is the GOP mantra on the subject.
Randy
I would argue like how Hoover's highly progressive form of conservatism was the last straw for Republicans, Obama's highly progressive form of liberalism is going to be the last straw for Democrats, especially if healthcare passes. While reform is seen favoribly by a vast majority of Americans, we clearly do not want this particular healthcare bill. I don't see how passage would hurt the GOP at all.
I have seen conflicting studies on tort reform, I think Florida did manage to lower some costs iirc. We should go after the biggest things first, naturally, but if tort reform is the only agreed upon solution, as insignificant as it is, why not try it. At the same time, perhaps some doctors do deserve to pay for mistakes, but while that is true clearly the current system isn't working, surely you have heard about ridiculous lawsuit payouts. One solution is that patients or the hospital should insure their own procedures, instead of making the doctors liable (for more than costs of the procedure). One hospital I recall insured any unexpected follow up procedures and complications, and managed to standardize procedures and reduce costs that way.
Unfortunately, as good as it sounds, forcing companies to accept patients with pre-existing conditions doesn't make any sense. Insurance is a bet against risk, where the insurance company is betting that no complications will arise, and you are. It logically follows no insurance company should be forced to give out insurance to a homeowner who's house is burning down! If you did, then you would have to argue you need to cap costs so the companies can't "gouge" consumers. Once insurance companies realize they will lose money, it's no longer a competition of who can provide the best insurance, but rather a race to the bottom to get their unprofitable customers to leave as fast as possible. Though I am personally against it, a FAR better alternative would to subsidize a percentage of the most expensive insurance plans (and in fact George W. Bush signed a law to this effect, but the states need to implement it themselves). Another good idea would be long-term contracts of tens of years or more like we do with life insurance.
Hoover gave the ideal republican response to the Great Depression: he did virtually nothing until it was too late. When all those Americans were on the street selling apples, instead of recognizing the problem he claimed they were being entreprenuers.
Americans when asked favor the separate provisions of the bill wholeheartedly. What they seem to be against is the caricature the bill has become due to the loud, obnoxious and paranoid opponents of heathcare reform and monied interests. Also, there’s a subset of Americans who don’t support the bill because it doesn’t go far enough but It’ll be a cold day in hell (if there is such a place) before they vote for a republicans.
It's better than the government telling me how much I should get if the doctor cuts off the wrong leg which would leave me with no legs after they cut off the correct one.
So your solution is to pass on the responsiblility to the potential victim?
Or a public option.
My first thought is then we should have no problem passing each provision as a separate bill, then. You will also find that while "public option" might sound attractive, "Government-sponsored health insurance program and mandate" does not. If you really want to get to the nitty-gritty most Americans don't care and make up an opinion on the spot of asked. I don't even do this, but the best thing to do is look at the "undecided" number versus the other options as they change over time, that gives some idea on who actually knows what the survey means.
Yes - it's called personal responsibility. I also offered the suggestion that the hospital provide that insurance/guarantee, as well, if that's too hard to understand. And as I pointed out, at least when hospitals standardize procedures between doctors with checklists and such, unexpected complications go down, so it would probably be beneficial to hospitals too.
What would a public option be but an extension of all the problems we have currently? The biggest problem by far is almost no one pays for their own health insurance anymore, their insurance company does, even routine, scheduled checkups and procedures, and it doesn't end there, most people don't even choose their health insurance provider, their employer does, or the government provides it! Where is the "competition"? Where is the profit motive to reduce costs and prices? There isn't any.
Why do you think cosmetic surgery prices have been going down? LASIK too, I have heard (since it often isn't covered by insurance)! Surely they should be going up with the rest of the industry?
Hoover was the typical conservative of his time. Hoover did nothing to help until it was too late. He had a hands off approach because he and others thought that the economy would bounce back on its own. By the time he started doing something Roosevelt's election was in the bag. Roosevelt instituted social peograms to help those who were unemployed and he increased spending to get people working again. That's when the unemployment rate started to go down.
He and Hoover had similar platforms but as I said before it was too late for Hoover. The platform Roosevelt ran on was not implemented. Working people especially union members got him elected and they weren't gonna let him stand by while people were starving. The American people had to push him to create social programs and increase spending.
Is it your opinion that we shouldn't have gotten into WWII even after Pearl Harbor was bombed?
And you know this because...?
So you're assuming that some people don't know what the provisions mean?
So the doctors should take personal responsibility for cutting off the wrong leg.
That doesn't make any sense. We're paying premiums to the insurance companies to take care of that stuff.
That's the nature of our system and it's what conservatives and big monied interests want to keep intact.
Once the surgeries become less complicated, the prices go down. It's literally nothing to do lasik surgury nowadays.
Profit can be good or bad. It can lead people to cheat other people especially in an industry that almost everyone needs. The profit motive essentially allows them to blackmail you.
Your post is naive. You assume that it's a level playing field and it's not.
Simply not true. The republic party had the WH and both houses of Congress 2001-2006. What did they "care" about? Please list every HCR bill authored, submitted, and passed by them during this time. Duh.
If your ideas are so wonderful, why didn't they pass them? Because they DIDN'T CARE and DON'T CARE. Reality is reality, sorry. HCR will never happen under a conservative govt. History proves that. Deal with it.
and just think obama has already had over a year with a SUPER majority and what has he gotten done?... nothin. how's that changey-hopey thing doin?
On the other hand, truly immoral are the LAWYERS that siphon off billions and provide NOTHING to health care...
BTW - Did I mention that 40% of the health insurance providers are not-for-profit, JUST like mmfa...
I'm kinda of the opinion that people should be HELPED when they can't stand on their own. I OBJECT when they WON'T stand on their own... case in point.
Know a 23 year old mother of three (known her since she was 11). Smart, easy to gt along with. Married to a five time loser husband jailed repeatedly for spousal abuse. Can't keep a job fo more than 3 months. Hasn't had a job in over 2 years... Her third child was born just before valentines day. All three were delivered in the hospital at NO CHARGE to them (medicade). Both parents get food stamps an monetary assistance, for over 2 years now. I truly believe the kids should be looked after and take care of. HOWEVER she refuses to get rid of him (the husband), because she LOVES him.... OK so exactly why should I care if HE (the husband) and she don't care??? just give me a hint... BTW welfare, medicade and food stamps just ENABLE them to continue on the same dead end road...?? Oh and this is OT an isolated case, I've met MANY of her loser friends too.
FACT IS it's IMMORAL to take the income I work hard for to support MY family to pay for THEM...
The goal of any healthcare reform must be increase supply, once we do that, we can give healthcare to more people, at a lower price. It's that simple.
oldswede
Representative Ryan did a very good job of representing these views. Lamar Alexander pointed out that under the President's proposal premiums will increase. The President tries to say that they will go down, but he ignores the proposed new minimum requirements around preventive care which will drive rates up not down.
His ratings must be dropping.
Beck's own loonyness will marginalize him. I just hope he doesn't have access to a clock tower or explosives.
You know, honestly, I really don't care whether there are or aren't enough of them to 'take over' or whether they have in some form 'always existed'. In my opinion...they are toxic waste that we're either going to drive back into the swamp they came out of or suffer the consequences for a generation. Their audience exceeds the numbers for any other media. It's gone way beyond the hateful old drunk that's been muttering at the end of the bar for 30 years. I just think we can no longer pretend it isn't a threat. I'm trying to imagine what or who will create the 21st century's "Have you no shame!" moment that seriously starts to turn it around.
I am certain it is just an oversight since Mssrs. Boehner, Cantor, Graham, McCain and McConnell are busy men. Fortunately, this waste of taxpayer money is easily corrected. Please contact your Senators and Representatives letting them know that they need to initiate and support legislation rescinding US government healthcare for Congress and their staffs. While they're at it they should include the executive and judicial branches as well.
This would be both a symbolic and substantive first step in restoring fiscal sanity to our overburdened health care system, which is only, after all, what Mssrs. Boehner, Cantor, Graham, McCain and McConnell want. It would also strike a blow for freedom. The oppression the Republicans must feel being forced to succumb to government run healthcare. Who among us can be so steel-hearted to allow this to continue?
Did you know that Japan gets the same health care we do at 1/3 the price? No? Guess your effort wasn't considerable enough.
NO ONE in ANY country gets the same quality health care we get... Even our ILLEGAL ALIENS get top quality health care, FREE at any ER... Well unless you ask fidel, and mikey moore! - I'm sure that even YOU aren't that gullible...
One quick question, just how many of those life saving heart procedures were mastered in japan, england, canada??? or exactly how many of those life saving medications were invented in japan? thought so... NONE.
Read my comment all the way through, slowly, and with an open mind.
If they don't pay, take it from their "foreign aid" packages...
Gosh, I wonder how many uninsured we could pay for??? I'd bet at least all of the pre-conditions and those denied coverage(or they could go to the ER).
I'll wager that all this gets is thumbs down... CALL YOUR SENATOR OR CONGRESSMAN TODAY....
Republicans act as if they're allowed an alternate political identity, and anything that identity says or does is written off due to it's political nature...
I really don't know how putting down victims will help their cause at all...I mean, they just end up sounding like really horrible cold-hearted grinches. But somehow they think they're gonna warp it into their favor...and the "liberal" media will conform.
The right-wing would NEVER be religious if they couldn't conform the Bible to assert their agenda.
They're just so ignorant...and it's not all ignorance based on stupidity, it's an honest avoidance of factual evidence (and the falsification of it) that could educate the public at all...and as well all know, the GOP equates education to indoctrination. Just because something is a FACT doesn't mean you HAVE to believe it! And THAT is what makes them special.
If there were a WAY for people to "switch shoes" for a day...I'd like to see these fatass pundits like Cheney (yes, he's a pundit) and Limbaugh have one of their quarterly heart attacks without having insurance...and without millions of bucks income...
Its always the richest and best off who are most content with the status quo at any given time.
Additionally, there is the matter of people who are shut-in because their faces are disfigured by dental disease. The loss of one's smile can be as devastating and traumatic as the loss of a limb.
Only the truly cruel would make light of such circumstances.
Come on, just list a few REALISTIC ideas... And try not to start with the name calling and obfuscation... just the facts... I'll get it started
Charge the "countries of origin" for the cost of treating "ILLEGAL ALIENS", taking the money from their financial aid if necessary. (no racist commends about "different than you", ILLEGAL ALIENS come from all countries regardless of race or ethnicity)...
Take the money and treat uninsured Americans and uninsured LEGAL immigrants.
http://www.timesreporter.com/homepage/x1570103744/Daily-poll-for-2-28
Greetings from Earth! Just stumbled upon this site, it appears that even the most hardcore leftists would rather watch and obsess over Fox News than watch the deranged rantings of the kind folks at MSLSD. I don't blame ya. Just wanted to know how you progressives are feeling knowing your agenda is unraveling faster than Lindsay Lohan's sobriety. Ooh but you're so close, just give it another 12 months and THEN the American public will love your god-awful health care "reform"! Keep that smile on your face and don't stop believing! 2010 is totally your year!