- Pennsylvania Among 'Terrible 10' Most Regressive Tax States
- February 4 Non-Partisan Training: HOW TO RUN FOR ELECTION BOARD IN 2013: HOW TO RUN FOR COMMITTEEPERSON IN 2014
- Republican Governors Opt-In to Medicaid Expansion
- The Reports of Unions' Death Are Greatly Exaggerated
- Ask Allyson Schwartz to run for Governor
- Mind the gap: Opting Out of Medicaid Expansion Leaves Low-income Families Behind
- Jan. 14 Workshop:HOW TO RUN FOR ELECTION BOARD IN 2013; HOW TO RUN FOR COMMITTEEPERSON IN 2014
- Seth Williams on Guns, Jasmine Rivera on School Closures @PFC Meetup Wednesday
- PA Revenue Strong Midway Through Year; Tax Cut Could Have Big Impact
- What to Make of the Fiscal Cliff Deal?
Marc Stier: Keeping It Real
Submitted by RussDiamond on Sun, 08/16/2009 - 12:40pm.
I'm disappointed by this, Marc:
We are in the fight of our lives, for health care reform, for the progressive movement and for the soul of this country. This week, in Philadelphia and in Kittanning, over a thousand of supporters of health care outnumbered the opposition and, particularly in Kittaning, stood up to racist and anti-Semitic thugs while keeping the focus on guaranteeing quality, affordable, health care to all.
Read the reported full text of Marc's letter
I think we've all come to expect this kind of cheap broadbrushing from random Average Joes at protests, but from the state director of one the Obama Administration's staunchest allies?
Way to "keep the focus."
You dont think posters of Obama as Hitler are a tad thuggish?
Do you honestly think the folks coming out town-halls telling Arlen Specter that he's part of a plan to use health insurance reform to somehow turn our country into "Nazi Germany" doesn't at least touch a little bit of a nerve?
Some of them are certainly behaving "thuggishly" in the sense of wanting to shout down actual debate of the issues with outright lies, prioritizing a politics of irrational fear over serious discussion. And a small subset of those "thug"-like screamers do have a history of working with far-right racist and anti-Semitic groups.
I'm frankly having a hard time buying into your beef, Russ, when US congressmen are getting graffiti like this for supporting health care reform.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
I think I made my point
I think I made my point pretty clearly Sean. How many "State Directors" of the opposition are doing this stuff? Marc's professionalism as an activist suffers by kowtowing to the lowest common denominator and it reflects on the organization. If you don't see that, so be it.
Advantage: Us.
You thought you knew. Now you do.
Tip of the Spear
"Us" being who?
The people that scream that figuring out a way for small businesses to buy health insurance at the same price IBM and Proctor and Gamble do for their employees is the road to Nazism and/or Marxism? If you are signing up to be part of that "us" you all are bunch of losers who have a pathological problem with communicating truthfully in my book - and frankly thats sort of worst than being merely being racist and anti-Semitic, because the status quo in American healthcare isn't just an empty expression of bigotry - it actually kills people.
But sure if you feel "racist, anti-Semitic" crosses a line (even if clearly the shoe does fit for some of the folks you are calling "us") maybe you prefer "fear-mongering, pathological liars and murderers" because thats probably a little closer to the truth of the matter - at least in my book.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
"Us" being everyone who
"Us" being everyone who opposes government intervention in the health choices of individuals and generally just prefer to be left alone. Is it really evil to not want to mimic Europe or Canada? Is it horrible to hold out for actual liberty? Is it heresy to distrust the Vince Fumos of the world with things we consider important?
Geez Sean, now you're doing the broadbrushing. Can't help yourself, huh?
You thought you knew. Now you do.
Tip of the Spear
Opposing government intervention in healthcare is a non-sequiter
States certify doctors and nurses, every aspect of insurance policy -what kind of policies can and can't be sold - is already at least in theory only made possible by regulation. The FDA determines what sort of drugs and therapies are legal in the United States - which is why you can't get insurance to go visit the corner snake handler. About 100 million Americans have some form of government medical coverage through Medicaid, Medicare, the military or federal employee plans. Thats about 1 in 3 Americans.
People who say they flatly "oppose government intervention in healthcare" are either using a bizarely disingenuous rhetorical device or else extremely stupid.
I really don't see how anyone who is not either completely ammoral or else simply delusional can claim to be on the side of "liberty" when they justify the contiuation of practices like recission by the insurance companies.
Russ, check out this story and tell that not regulating against those practices is somehow protecting "liberty". When insurance companies incentivize cutting people out by any means possible as soon as they become sick with expensive illnesses, that is absolutely nothing but a form of tyranny of the highest, most despicable form.
Basically the rhetoric you are throwing here start out from a ridiculous level of misinformation and then proceeds to insane gibberish. If you are sick and then arbirarily denied treatment by blood sucking private insurance company bureaucrats there is no such thing as "liberty" in that transaction. If you are denied health coverage and die or become severely ill, that puts a pretty intense limitation on your ability to appreciate any other form of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".
Saying you categorically oppose "government intervention in healthcare" is sort of like saying government should build roads and highways but not be involved in the process of setting traffic regulations or forcing people to drive on the right hand side of the road or have automobile insurance. The statement is so out of touch with basic realities of modern healthcare it is either just plain dumb or fundamentally dishonest.
The development of "government intervention" in medicine in one form or another is pretty much an integral pre-requisite for the development every medical advance of the last century, from anti-biotics to MRI's. Or I guess we could go back to traveling snake oil salesman and tribal witch doctors.
But if you really want to take government completely out of the business of treating sick people, we are back to a pretty primitive idea of what constitutes "health care" in the first place. So next time you feel under the weather, Russ, feel free to swing by my house and pay me $500 to sprinkle oils over you and chant incantations. I could really use the money.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
Actually for you, Russ, I have a special deal
Since you don't believe in "government intervention in healthcare" I am offering a special complimentary deal my new flu vaccine. Its called "heroin" and because you are such a swell guy the first four or five "innoculations" will be free but after that the price of um "treatments" goes up.
And the most wonderful thing about this um "flu vaccine" is that it works on all kinds of things. Arthritis, impotence, hair loss - and its very well known as one hell of a weight-loss plan. Once you try my new miracle drug - "heroin" - I 100% guarantee you your current medical conditions won't even cross your mind.
I gotta say this "healthcare without government intervention" may yet turn out to be a really profitable business for me, methinks.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
Great rant, Sean.
Great rant, Sean. Kudos!
States certifying doctors and nurses? I ideologically oppose it, but will allow you that it does not run counter to PA's constitution.
FDA? You mean the agency that's basically a tool for Big Pharma? Yeah, I oppose that as well.
Medicaid, Medicare, the military or federal employees? I got beefs with all of them.
Roads and highways? Yeah, I'd choose for the government not to build them and not to set the regulations. But they did build them, so they have a liability issue on behalf of the taxpayers, so I'll deal with the regulations. I don't want the government building more health care highways, thanks.
I don't need your snake oils, I pay for my doctor visits and prescriptions ($8/month at the evil WalMart) out of my own pocket. I'll carry insurance in case something major happens.
If you like the idea of putting your health in the hands of the Vince Fumos of the world, great. But 1) don't force me to participate, 2) don't force me to pay for it, and 3) don't make my method of maintaining my health extinct. Deal?
You thought you knew. Now you do.
Tip of the Spear
If you actually have insurance
you pay more for it because of the higher expenses for healthcare coming from emergency services for the uninsured. And as for the Vince Fumo's of the world, he had to at least deliver something tangible consistantly to his voters or face the risk of being voted out. And he eventually got popped.
You don't get that option with big insurance. When the virtual monopolies of big health insurance summarily drop your coverage when you most need it from recission, Russ, get back to me about how much you are enjoying that "liberty" of not receiving any treatment at all.
So tell me more about coverage for the military. Come on and be consistant Russ and tell us exactly how you don't think that the government should make you contribute for vets who had their legs blown off by an IED. I'm sure thats a position that will make you real popular with the American people.
Also your #3 is total and complete fabrication. There is no plan on the table to make private insurance "extinct" for those who choose it. You are nothing but a bold-faced liar on that one, Russ Diamond, and you know it.
As for #1 and #2 - we make folks carry car insurance because if they cause an accident it will cost the rest of us. The "freedom" you cherish to not have health insurance is just a recipe for you to pass off the costs onto the rest of us when you end up in the emergency room. Basically if its a choice between your taking money out of my pocket without my control from your stupidity of being uninsured and the government taking money out of my pocket, I'll take the government because its at least somewhat accountable to me. Your ability to rip me off with your stupidity on the other hand has no bounds or limits. When you "opt out" of health insurance, you are every bit as much of a thief and significantly less accountable to the voters than Vince Fumo was.
Basically in this thread alone, Russ, you have been making excuses for lying and stealing every bit as bad as Fumo, or doing it yourself. Good work.
So to be clear, Russ, do you currently have insurance now that covers catastrophic care or are you depending on the rest of us to pay your way? Inquiring minds want to know.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
I don't understand how
I don't understand how something I ask for could be a fabrication. Are you therefore guaranteeing me that I can continue on my merry way the same way I have been taking care of my health all along? And that I don't have to participate in anything currently before congress? And that I won't be taxed for one iota of it?
Since you didn't see it over on PhillySpeaks, I'll repeat my personal health situation here for you. I go to the doctor every 6 weeks. I pay him $50 a pop out of pocket every time. I pay $8/month to evil WalMart for my HBP prescriptions, out of pocket. I visit the dentist every 3 months, either $92 or $120 out of pocket, depending on whether they do xrays. I visit the eye doctor annually, $125 out of pocket each time. I pay these myself because my maintenance is my responsibility. No need for insurance or coverage here. Even though I'd wager I currently earn far less money than most who will read this, I prioritize because my health is important to me, sacrificing other things that I just don't really need.
In December I had to have my gall bladder removed, including admission through the emergency room, two other invasive procedures and a six-day hospital stay. $55,000 bill, partially covered by insurance. My out of pocket: appr. $4800. Hospital was very gracious in allowing me to pay $200/month interest-free. They would have accepted $10/month if it was all I could afford.
Previously, I've had six other outpatient surgeries. Two were elective, so I paid cash ($1500 & $3200). Four were necessary if I wanted to keep my teeth in my head, but the dental insurance I had at the time (self-paid mind you, because I'm self-employed) didn't cover periodontal work, so I paid cash ($7200), although they also would have happily accepted an interest-free monthly payment plan. Again a matter of personal priority, and back then I could afford the whole bill at once.
So tell me Sean, exactly which part of this is stealing from you? (I'm glad, though, that you readily admit that someone relying on government for this stuff is stealing. You're coming around.)
Any other conclusions you care to jump to?
Edited to add: I assume none of this makes me racist or anti-semitic.
You thought you knew. Now you do.
Tip of the Spear
So I was reading about your Walmart prescription plan
it gives you a deal on the purchase of a very basic set of generic drug prescriptions but thats about it. If you trip on the stairs or fall from a ladder, Russ, and break a leg it would appear that all the rest of us are footing the bill when you end up at the emergency room. God help us if come down with cancer or something.
Even the real health insurance plan (yours, Russ, is just prescription drug payment plan) for most Walmart workers has limitations on the health insurance coverage so scant, its not really considered helath insurance by most industry experts. Again it seems the rest of us are in effect actually paying the bills when you are any of their workers become seriously ill.
From a Wall Street Journal article (yes its being carried on a DSA page):
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
Ummm dude, get a grip. I
Ummm dude, get a grip. I have no prescription plan. Even if I "trip on the stairs or fall from a ladder" wtf makes you think you would be paying for it? Why do you keep insisting that I'm totally uninsured? Did I not just reveal that I am?
WalMart offers a slew of prescription drugs to people willing to pay cash for $4 for 30 days; $10 for 90 days. Other chains do it too, it's just that WalMart is closest to me. Ain't the free market grand?
You thought you knew. Now you do.
Tip of the Spear
But you are underinsured if something catastrophic happens
and which case i am footing the bill and you are stealing from me. Your earlier post hit just before mine did so pardon any confusion on the Walmart post.
My beef is that you are not admitting that your decision to under-insure makes my "real" insurance coverage more expensive. You are ripping me off.
In terms of the "lying" earlier I said that about your question #3 because you are asking that something does not happen that isn't even on the table. You suggested that the ability to buy adequate private insurance was going to be taken away and thats never, ever been on the table. You imply that it is in your comment as a disingenuous scare tactic and thats a lie.
Moving on, it appears you saved up and paid an awful lot of money for your gall bladder surgery as an out pocket expense. If you get something that elimnates your ability to make those handy $200 a month payments to the hospital, something that keeps you in the hospital, the rest of us are picking up the tab for your choice to be underinsured because ultimately you will still get treated and what you can't pay for will get eaten by the hospital. We'll all pay for it but not through taxes in the usual sense. We will pay for it in increased health care costs and higher premiums whether we get sick or not. And you didn't call us all to ask if thats OK.
So no if government comes up with a workable plan that the American people agree to support that isn't "stealing" because I and the rest of the country agree to the plan but individuals like yourself who try to cheat the system by running around under-insured are actually "stealing" money from my pocket because you are taking risks that translate to more money out of my pocket without my permission.
Thanks a bunch, dude.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
How on earth are you
How on earth are you determining that I'm underinsured?
I did not save a dime up for my gall bladder thingy. It was a totally unexpected and sudden emergency. After insurance covered the bulk of it (as contracted, mind you) I worked out a payment plan with the hospital for the balance. Anyone can do this.
If something happens that makes it impossible for me to make the remaining payments to the hospital, I can attempt to renegotiate. Or if worse comes to worse, I can sell some stuff that I don't need. You won't be stuck with the bill in any case, so I have no reason whatsoever to call you ahead of time or ask for your OK at all.
What about this is cheating? Or do you just not believe someone can take care of their own needs, pick a decent insurance plan and survive within the free market (as we know it)?
You thought you knew. Now you do.
Tip of the Spear
I admit I saw too many zeros in your gall bladder bill
when i first scanned your post.
No you appear to have a pretty average catastrophic-only health insurance plan on a reread. I appologize. You have a real plan that covers emergencies. I also was thrown of by your use of the future tense I "will" carry health insurance in your earlier post.
Part of the problem with my misunderstanding is that you keep mentioning the prescription drug plan as sort of a red herring on the cost of your insurance. That isn't even remotely close to the cost you pay on the monthly health insurance plan is it? What is it around $300 or $400 a month - for a plan that requires you to cover the maintenance and drug stuff you take care of seperately? Yes I get it you buy a cheap prescription plan in order to bargain shop on more bare-bones insurance but then wheres the mention of actual cost of that more no-frills insurance? I don't actually care except you offering yourself up as an explanation about how the status quo is ideal and its not really a problem that people do very often opt out of insurance, in effect driving up all our costs.
I mean I am sorry to be so rude but if your point was about private health insurance cost wouldn't the first most applicable information be rough numbers for how much you pay a month versus deductibles? And what kind of things won't your insurance cover? What are the rules on "pre-existing conditions" and recission? I don't really care Russ, I'm just trying to get the point of why you think your life is exemplary of how ideal in every way the current system is.
And as you say yourself you choose to pay lot for this bare bones coverage but clearly there are others in your same basic income bracket who do not and you have a big problem with there being a sginficant economic incentive for them to sign up for something. Do you think most folks who earn as much as you do pay that big a chunk of their monthly income or do you think that you are more conscious of the risk and hence more willing to budget for it than most? Honest answers, now.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
Sean, I don't have a
Sean, I don't have a prescription drug plan unless those prescriptions are necessary as a result of something that is covered by my catastrophic plan. The WalMart thing is standard fare for anyone who pays cash for a slew of common medications.
I don't think putting my personal finances in a public arena is prudent, but put it this way: Even with all my out of pocket regular checkup and prescription expenses and the premiums, it is FAR less expensive than what I was paying for an "all-inclusive" plan, and that's even before Highmark announced it was jacking up my rates 119% a few years back. Good deals and good companies are out there, you just have to find them.
I don't think the system is perfect or ideal at all. There are fixes in order, but they are NOT what congress is suggesting at all. You just watch, whatever they do Big Pharm and Big Insurance will be the benefacters and actual people who might benefit from real change will be left out in the cold.
You thought you knew. Now you do.
Tip of the Spear
So this isn't a complete wase of time
do you libertarian Russ Diamond have beef with the health insurance exchange?
Its obvious we aren't going to talk about substance here, that it all comes down to your gut feelings - and they are not consistent with the stuff I've read on costs from the uninsured for the rest of us. You don't have numbers and you can't disprove the more credible ones that our out there.
What is it outside of the realm of of previous broad generalities about "not believing in government intervening in healthcare", generalties that didn't hold much water on closer examination, that is your beef with the public-option?
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
When you say "public option"
When you say "public option" why is it that I think "public toilet?"
Sean, do whatever you want, just don't 1) force me to participate, 2) force me to pay, or 3) make what I'm doing extinct. If any of those 3 can't be guaranteed, I'm against it.
You thought you knew. Now you do.
Tip of the Spear
But your "force me to pay"
is to me some dumb jerk forcing me to pay even more indirectly for others in order to protect his stupid "choice" to put himself at risk.
I think the vast majority of Americans would say - if the Oz-weepays stoppped screaming non-sequiters enough to allow a discussion of the facts - "Hey everybody gets covered and I personally pay less (or at least less than I would be paying with a less competitive insurance market), bring it on".
Which is exactly why the right has so frequently resorted to ridiculous scare tactics that are full of lies and misdirection at best, at worst sometimes even more than just a strong whiff of racism and anti-Semitism.
(Hows that for a way to bring it back around to the original post?)
In terms of the House bill, as far as I understand it, what you, Russ Diamond, are doing - opting out of a non-emergency prescription drug plan and paying more up front for routine care to buy the cheapest possible emergency coverage - would still be basically the same. There may be some minor regulatory shifts that slightly push up the lower limits of what your no-frills coverage covers in an emergency situation. On the other hand those shifts are probably going to be offset by overall effect of lowering costs - so you end up with an only slightly less barebones plan at the same cost. Maybe that no good state director in the title of this thread sometime when he's not so desperately busy could elucidate.
It would make a dramatic difference if you were in the boat of someone like what I wrongly earlier accused you - not being covered at all because they would essentially be forced through fees and such to get into some kind plan - the public option one, one of the existing big insurance companies, or a bare-bones plan like yours.
This discussion should really be about the numbers, how they add up for different people and whether overall the American people find the real costs and benefits to their liking. Instead its been dominated by a bunch of baseless screaming about "socialism" and "death panels" for no other purpose but to make rational discussion go haywire.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
exactly
when an uninsured or underinsured person goes to the ER, the ER doesn't just eat it when the patient can't pay. They pass all that overhead to the insuracne companies, who pass it on to us.
So i would agree with sean's characterization as stealing, the same way in which if you were driving uninsured, hit my car and were unable to pay the costs of my repairs.
Sorry about your gall bladder. in canada, you wouldn't have paid a cent.
Sean is attempting to lay
Sean is attempting to lay this at my feet by first concluding that I'm uninsured, and now claiming that I'm underinsured. Both of which are simply conclusion he's jumped to. I think he's just upset to find someone who counters his assumptions with real-life examples of how to take some responsilibilty for one's own health care needs.
In Canada, how much more would I be paying in taxes in exchange for my "free" laproscopic cholestystecomy? And would the quality of care be equal? Methinks the answers are: a lot more and hardly.
You thought you knew. Now you do.
Tip of the Spear
But you didn't say how much you pay
so your "methinks" could well be just so much B.S.
Again I don't really want to know your personal details Russ but if your life story is the grand example we need ball parks for how much based on your income someone would actually pay in taxes and also how much you actually do pay for insurance. Neither of which have been mentioned here, which kind of proves a big fat zero.
1.) Basically you posted a lot superfluous info about yourself without getting to the nitty gritty and so your example proved nothing.
2.) A Canada-style single-payer plan was never what Obama or Specter or Sestak were advocating for so the whole exercise is about criticizing a plan thats not even on the table. If you want to talk specifics, you have to talk about the actual House public-option bill which is not and for better or worse never even close to the Canadian system. Otherwise its just another conservative bait-and-switch "lets yell about stupid things we just made up to yell about" strategy.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
I am no grand example. All
I am no grand example.
All I'm suggesting is that before we try to blanket everyone with some cumbersome crap from DC, maybe everyone ought to take responsibility for their own oil changes & inspections and learn the difference between insurance and access to health care.
Oh yeah, and let's stop having state directors on your side broadbrushing us as racist and anti-semitic thugs.
You thought you knew. Now you do.
Tip of the Spear
But lots of others don't take that responsibility
and as a result it costs the rest of us lots more, so much more that by most economists findings "the blanket crap from DC" would be cheaper and higher quality product for everybody. You like a system that costs more for a crappier product and I want more bang for my buck. The "blanket crap from DC" would be a better deal for me and most Americans. I like cheaper and better and no risk of insurance companies wriggling out of contractual agreements through things like recission when the shit hits the fan. I like small businesses buying insurance for their employees at the same rate big companies do.
Basically your whole story boils down "I figured out a way to pay a little more out of pocket to pay slightly less overall on insurance for a crappy healthcare product than some people but the overall product is still wasteful and needlessly bureaucratic. Also if my specific health needs were to shift dramatically tomorrow its possible it might quickly become a dramatically less good deal leaving me out in the cold." Very convincing argument against the public option there, Russ.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
You weren't paying attention
You weren't paying attention Sean.
I'm paying far less out of pocket overall than I did, even before the onset of HBP which requires frequent doctor visits and prescriptions, and even before Highmark shot a 119% increase at me for an all-inclusive plan. I can't imagine any particular shift in my health care needs that would change that one iota.
The crux here is that if folks would start talking about taking care of their own maintenance and leaving insurance for catastrophes, we'd be a lot closer to fixing the system than through anything DC is proposing.
One other thing: On my daily 25-mile bicycle ride today (a habit which I took up to help treat my HBP) I was thinking about your analogy to the government mandate for auto insurance. It's totally bogus because that mandate was not geared at covering folks for losses resulting from their own bad habits or stupidity, but to cover OTHER folks who may experience losses due to the same bad habits and stupidity. Otherwise, the mandate would be for full coverage, not just liability.
You thought you knew. Now you do.
Tip of the Spear
Wrong
I am forced to foot the bill for other's bad choices (individual's bad choices and some employer's bad choices) currently in higher costs, higher insurance rates. Applying a rational system to crank down those costs (which I am already paying whether I like it or not) through my elected government is democracy in action and as American as apple pie.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
wrong
your quality of care would be quite good actually. I have experienced this first hand. have YOU ever experienced candian health care for yourself? Have you been to a hospital in canada? if not, how can you say "methinks" the care wouldn't be as good as here? It's not a 3rd world country.
as for the taxes... man, i've spent a lot of time in canada, and i don't hear anyone complaining about the health care. my ex loves it, and regularly makes fun of me when I talk about the problems down here. For all the hysterics about taxes, she certainly seems satisfied. It's not all that much, and besides you actually get something in return for your taxes other than a useless war in iraq that hasn't solved anything.
either way, the amoutn you would pay through your taxes would be a LOT less than your out-of-pocket expense here.
Instead of trafficking in speculation about how much you think it would cost you, why not look into it?
I have always wondered when we Americans stopped caring about each other. my ex thinks the US isn't so much a society as it is a group of individuals.
And there we have it. I
And there we have it. I don't care about others. Yes indeed, what a miserable bastard I must really be.
/eyeroll
We ARE a group of individuals, not a collective. And each individual is sovereign. What a beautifully balanced design. Too bad everyone and their brother seems to want to defeat the notion.
You thought you knew. Now you do.
Tip of the Spear
And you still haven't answered why
a system where I don't have a say in how some individuals end up costing me more (the current system) is better where all of us individuals have the option of buying a better, cheaper plan with a big giant group discount that helps keep the insurance companies honest (the public option).
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
Because despite all your
Because despite all your hopes, it just won't work out that way Sean.
Are we keeping the banksters honest? Will Medicare remain solvent? Social Security?
Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.
You thought you knew. Now you do.
Tip of the Spear
That's a statement of faith, not measured reality, Russ
Medicare has funding problems because the number of people who qualify is rising rapidly proportional to the overall population - in other words boomers are getting old and people are living longer. In terms of controlling the rapid rise of health care costs per person, its far, far healthier than the private insurance market - actually by an order of 10. You are the one defending an ultimately unsustainable system here Russ.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
you didn't answer the questions
but instead chose to freak out about my closing thought.
so that tells me: A) you've never experienced canadian health care; B) you've never been to a hospital in canada; C) you have NO IDEA how canadian health care compares to the US; and D) you know NOTHING about how much higher the taxes are or the imapct on personal income.
methinks your objection to my closing thought is a distraction from your rank sophistry.
i call bullshit.
Not freaking at all, just an
Not freaking at all, just an autonomic response to a ludicrous but all too common blow-off comment from statists everywhere.
I am not a Canadian. I've been to Canada, but it was a long time ago and it wasn't to go to any hospital. So riddle me these: What portion of Canadians' tax burden is dedicated to health care? What is that in US dollars for the average Candian? How many Americans are going to Canada for health care?
Really though, I don't care what Canada does. Or England. Or any other country, because I live here and will most likely always live here. And because here in America we have something very different than all those other countries, and this is the bottom line on my objection to federal intervention in health care: The congress has no constitutional authority to act and it is not competent to the task. Period.
Pennsylvania, however, does have the constitutional authority to act on and regulate health care, but I'd fight you there as well on the principle of liberty and my utter opposition to force and statism.
You thought you knew. Now you do.
Tip of the Spear
"The congress has no constitutional authority to act"
that's a pretty loony tunes interpretation of the Constitution there, Russ. Tell you what, go survey 100 random Americans and 20 random law professors teaching constitutional law whether the Constitution allows for the FDA to regulate what sort of drugs are safe or not and see if all 120 don't disagree with you.
Again you are professing a bizarre article of faith that I don't think is in the language of the document at all and I know is not reflected in its historical application, starting from its very first ratification. You are free to have your crazy pseudo-religious interpretations of the Constitution but don't force your faith on me - or the rest of American people who have to live in the real world.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
you don't care what canada does?
if that's true why did you just a few comments above make a reference to canadian health care as if it compares unfavorably to the US and you don't want it here?
you don't know anything about it or how it works, you have essentially admitted as much. It's like my five year old refusing to eat something he's never tried because "it's yucky".
I can find out from my ex TODAY what the tax burden is, but until then, here's wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_and_American_health_care_systems_c...
and using an easily available currency converters you can figure out what that means in US dollars.
as for how many americans go to canada for health care? surely you have heard of the growing phenomenon of "medical tourism": http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-US&ie=utf...
seriously man, make a serious argument. That's what's so tiresome: the arguments against health care reform seem to be so devoid of merit or susbtance, whether it's "obama's gonna kill your grandma" or "canada health care is bad" (when clearly it's not).
watch what you're saying russ
my son lives in canada most of the time, andw e have had a WONDERFUL experience with canadian health care. you act like having your health covered is some sort of slavery. It's not. It's not slavery when there's no bill for having a baby, and dental care is free, and you're covere 100%.
no one there is scared of losing their health coverage if they lose their job. In fact, most canadians I know are remarkably more carefree than most americans I know.
A few data points, so to speak
If you look at health care in the US, you'll see that we really have 3 different systems: a free-market insurance one (the one whose reform we're debating), a single-payer one (Medicare), and a socialized one (the VA system). It's also indisputable that the latter two systems get *much* higher marks from their customers than the first one. It's also indisputable that, at the same time that you hear teabaggers complain about 'socialized medicine,' in the very next breath they'll scream 'don't touch my Medicare!'
Simple lesson: we're currently involved in a national health care experiment to see whether single-payer, socialized, or free-market health care is best, and the answer is pretty clear: free-market works *far* less well than single-payer or socialized medicine.
Russ, if you wish to argue against my facts- not unsupported suppositions, but facts- please present facts of your own.
-Z
First zorro, there's no way
First zorro, there's no way you can classify the first as a "free market" system. Second, your insistence on using the insult "teabaggers" makes an actual discussion impossible.
You thought you knew. Now you do.
Tip of the Spear
Translation: you can't win,
Translation: you can't win, so you're not going to try.
Fair enough,
-Z
I don't know how I missed a post with my name in the title
Most likely because my focus is on winning health care not showing up right wing extremists for what they are. And I'm not going to let you distract us from our message with this crap.
But now that the moment has past where you can do that, here are the facts:
At the Kittaning event, a hundred or so right wingers chanted "Lying Jew Bastard" outside the hall where Arlen Specter spoke.
And they taunted African American supporters of health care reform with racial epithets and a water hose. Russ, you're old enough to get the symbolism. They then surrounded the bus on which these ACORN members were riding and would not let the bus leave until State Troopers intervened.
So, Russ, were these the actions of racist and anti-Semitic thugs or not?
Most opponents of health care reform are not racist, anti-Semitic thugs. But if you are not willing to denounce this kind of stuff, and the vicious picures of Obama with a Hitler mustache or big ears and lips, then what kind of credibility do you have?
And, if you talk to these folks in some depth, you'll find that they are all utterly misinformed about the legislation and believe wildly inaccurate versions of it. Why do they do that, Russ?
I think it is fairly obvious that what's going on in is pretty much what happened when the John Birch Society rose after JFK was elected. Then, as now, some Americans feel that they are losing their country to an outsider. (People under 60 may not realize that Catholics and Protestants who married each were often disowned in some parts of the country well into the 60s. It happened to an older colleague of mine at UNCC.) And they irrationally opposed anything JFK proposed. It’s a scary analogy, for a lot of reasons.
I'm not tarring you with that feather, Russ. Your opposition to health care reform is a principled one, based on your libertarianism. I can respect that, although I disagree with you.
But you are running with some pretty bad crowds right now, people who, by the way, don't share your libertarianism when it comes to other issues.
A different libertarian journey
Ross's libertarian fervor against government health care is in my gut too. But it's no longer in my head.
Capitalism does not teach that all market industries are smart all the time. Look at, duh, the finance industry that was consuming about 1/6 of America's GDP two years ago.
Now look at, duh, the health-care industry which is doing the same thing.
Furthermore, the HC industry has always been based on a complex mixture of public, charitable and profit motives. Freemarket purists may offer useful insights, but they are unlikely to cobble together a useful industry model strictly based on Adam Smith's pinmakers. It is inherently a public-private interface.
I married a Canadian and we were eager "medical tourists" to Montreal for an operation she could afford as a Canadian citizen but she couldn't afford as an American employee. One of my own employees, a (politically conservative) British citizen, returned to his homeland
for a serious operation that would have cost him $thousands here; he saved money by flying across the Atlantic to cash in on a no-charge government system!
So yes, I will contemplate any alternative to our current profit-driven health-insurance industry. Its costs are completely out of control. It makes a lousy Poster Child for capitalism in peril.
In parting, a note on the symbolism of guns. I think the Neo-Right is making a big mistake by stroking its gunbarrels at public meetings about paying for medicine. I'm American enough to have a violent and combative streak in me and I have no quarrel with gun owners. Psychologically, however, I don't want to see your guns all the time anymore than I want to see your genitals all the time. I don't want you flaunting guns in front of a playground. And it grates on me to see you flaunting guns in a medical discussion. By choice, I don't patronize doctors with gun-waving office staff; that's not at all the mood I'm in when I'm trying to figure out a medical decision.
I think health-reform opponents should eschew this tactic, then. It could easily (forgive me) backfire.