10 crazy things right-wingers believe
Jul 13th, 2009 | By badtux | Read more in: Feature, Politics
One thing that has become clear, looking at the right-wing responses to the health care proposals in Congress, is that they are, to put it bluntly, batshit crazy. Here’s ten of the crazy things they believe, in no particular order, and limited to ten only because they have an infinite number of crazy things they believe.
1. Only Americans have liberty. Because universal health care “takes our liberty,” and all other Western democracies have universal health care, only Americans are truly free. And unicorns are real, and cotton candy grows on trees. This would certainly be news to the average arrogant snooty liberty-obsessive Frenchman, who would point out that he has every liberty Americans have except the liberty to die like a dog in the streets for lack of health insurance, be bankrupted by bills his insurer won’t pay if he develops a serious illness or be driven into permanent poverty after a serious illness because nobody will hire you after a severe illness because of the $1M surcharge their insurer would immediately slap onto your company’s group health insurance policy. At this point the lunatic handwaves and says “He’s not free, he just doesn’t know it.”
2. At which point the crazy right-winger says, Nobody ever dies for lack of health insurance in America. Which of course is ridiculous. Excess mortality studies show that uninsured and underinsured Americans are more likely to die of a wide variety of illnesses than insured Americans. At this point the lunatic puts his hands over his head and says “I see nothing, I hear nothing, Eric De La Cruz never existed.”
3. Every other health care system has waiting lists and rationing. Of course, there is neither waiting lists nor rationing in the French health care system, but he’ll handwave that “there’s some specialty X where it might take two weeks to get an appointment in France, so THERE!”
4. Only Americans have access to advanced treatments. Of course, that is not true (click the France article above), but that is not a problem, he has faith, FAITH I say, in his Party commissars at Cato Institute and talk radio and Fox News, and surely they wouldn’t lie to him!
5. Taxes are slavery. I already dealt with that one.
6. Government can’t do anything right. Said on a government-created Internet as he sits in his home protected by a government fire station as a government police officer goes by, as criminals who would break into his home and kill him languish instead in a government prison, after going to his job on a government road and being paid his contractual wages because he has the ability to go to a government court to force back wages to be paid to him.
7. Medicare is a horrific nightmare of rationing, waiting lists and the government telling you what doctor you can see and when. It’s astounding how the right wing can outright lie with a straight face. Medicare patients have more freedom to choose their own doctor, are more satisfied with the care they receive and nobody ever tells a Medicare recipient’s doctor what care to provide. The same is not, of course, true with private insurers, who regularly fight with doctors to avoid paying for procedures that people need.
8. A government health care system would be horribly expensive! The only problem: Every single statistic says that’s not true. The more government involvement in healthcare, the cheaper health care seems to become. Indeed, when Taiwan went single-payer in 1996, the savings were so enormous that the year afterward, they covered 40 percent uninsured WITH NO INCREASE IN OVERALL COSTS because of getting rid of the horrific administrative inefficiencies imposed by having 1,500 different payers, each of which have their own rules and their own procedures, which requires as much as 60 percent administrative overhead from some providers to negotiate the system. There is a point at which you don’t want more government involvement because it reduces your choice and affects the quality of care — Britain has arrived at that point (in Britain’s socialized medicine system, all doctors are government employees, all hospitals are owned by the government, and private insurance is illegal) — but nobody proposes that system for America.
9. Canada and Britain. You notice that in the right-wing health care universe, there are only two other countries? Countries like France, Switzerland, Japan, etc. that get excellent results with their universal health care systems always seem to get omitted from any discussion by the right wing, perhaps because Switzerland shows that you can have drug innovation in a universal system (the Swiss drug companies are second only to the United States in innovation, even though Switzerland is a much smaller nation), while France and Japan show that you can get excellent cancer treatment in universal systems.
10. America has the best health care system in the world. Arguably true, *if* you are one of the 70 percent of Americans with private insurance or Medicare. If you are one of the 30 percent who are uninsured or on Medicaid, that is quite untrue — you do not get the best health care in the world, you get 3rd world care. That shows in the statistics, where, other than breast and prostate cancer statistics (where the American Cancer Society has done a stalwart job of making sure that breast and prostate cancer screening are available for all Americans), the United States compares horribly with most Western nations — higher infant mortality, lower lifespan, fewer doctors, and fewer hospital beds today than we had in 1973 when our population was much smaller. In short, what this shows is that the core health care *provider* system works quite well for the 70 percent of Americans who have full access to it — but we have a funding problem, where it bankrupts people far too often and cuts 30 percent of Americans entirely out of the real system and relegates them to a 3rd world ghetto health care system.
We’re spending the most, but getting mediocre results. We can do better. But the lunatics in the right wing, with their preference for believing their Party commissars at Cato, Heritage, hate radio and Faux News to believing, well, in REALITY, just put their hands over their ears and yell “LALALA I can’t hear you! Tyranny! Waiting lists! Best in world! Lalalala!” It’s sad, really, how grown men and women can be so childish as to want to live in a fantasy world of unicorns and cotton candy trees rather than the real world that the rest of us live in, the world where facts are facts. France has one of the best health care systems in the world, and the U.S. system for funding health care is fundamentally broken. So it goes — there will always be those more interested in believing their delusions than in what is real and true.
Author of Badtux the Snarky Penguin
Subscribe by RSS feed
Follow on Twitter
Got Kindle?
Yay for sanity! Excellent post. I grew up in Europe and I’ve been perplexed by these assertions that European health care sucks (well, quite true that only Britain and Canada get called out by name)…what I can tell you is that my insurance sucks (the insurance that my spouse’s employer provides to us by taking it out of wages earned) and I feel lucky that I have even that much.
[Reply]
This 2X cancer survivor, married to a cancer patient undergoing treatment, and on Medicare for both of us, we get much better service than most with health insurance. The insurance companies are STILL the ‘Wealthy Person’s Piggy Bank’, despite recent failures resulting mostly from deregulation that allowed them to enter the banking & investing sectors to ‘increase profits’ in a more competitive arena. ANOTHER concession to the Right’s big money backers. There’s a reason why they and ‘Big Oil’ don’t report yearly LOSSES as a rule. They report that ‘PROFITS are DOWN’. Still making a killing, just a bit slower than normal.
I also have VA coverage at one of the top categories, ’service related permanent injury’ from combat activities. That coverage was iffy in the 80s, but got better for a time under Clinton. The ‘SUPER PATRIOTS’ in the GOP started eroding the budgets for the VA, while arguing it was ‘Clinton’s doing’. The higher level of care almost totally vanished starting in 2001` as it was an easy place to cut costs. I’m happy to say that in the years since 2007 things have improved substantially, but Medicare is more reliable & convenient. With the VA, the Dr you see is usually a ‘contract Dr’ who will be replaced every 3 months. Another cost cutting measure from the ‘Armchair Generals’ who gave us war in Iraq. They ‘ask’ for more $$$, but never spend what was allocated and made zero attempt to keep up with inflation. The same folks whose ‘leader,’ the NEWT, clearly stated in 1994 that ‘Medicare will be allowed to die and wither on the vine’.
The co-pay can be daunting, but no more so than private insurance. The new Drug program that costs taxpayers a fortune & benefits PHARMA with guaranteed high prices. The drug plan is okay, until you get to the point where the recipient pays TOTAL costs until several thousand dollars have been spent, then the coverage gets really good. Many won’t reach the threshold & fall into ‘the gap’, but those like myself who take two ‘orphan’ drugs costing about $350 a week each, hit it really quickly. They also stepped up efforts to stop us getting meds from Canada as ‘the requirements there are different’. YUP! Different in a lot of countries, but that doesn’t keep PHARMA from producing drugs in those countries and importing them, just not okay for us stupid common folks to do it. So the plan allows you to get meds, but only agrees to pay until the threshold is reached. Strange how the ‘Right’ ALWAYS helps government employees and themselves by providing a great selection of avenues to get insurance, but doesn’t want us to have the same.
Having dual citizenship US/Canada and kids living on both sides of the border really provides a REAL contrast in care. The Canadians have health care problems, but not nearly as big as our health care problems. My personal opinion is that even problematic programs are far superior to NO program other than the ER for care normally obtained via GPs. Grouchy Old Injun off to take meds, shots, & enjoy foggy A.M.
[Reply]
Great post. The one thing the right wing excels at is the BIg Lie. And the biggest lie of all is the one they keep telling themselves about how this is the greatest country in the world and that God is our co-pilot. Arrrgh!
[Reply]
I would love an opportunity to respond to this one, but I am probably still disemvoweled. Just testing the waters first before trying to respond.
[Reply]
Bob….afraid somebody who reads this may bite ya? Ya may be right, I see some dirty liberal stole yer vowels. Did I just write that you ‘MAY be right’? Like you might be mistaken for a liberal!;)
[Reply]
d0n’t kn0w wht they r @fr@ld of mk
[Reply]
A Progressive Girl
Reply:
July 13th, 20092009-07-13T16:12:55ZF jS, Y at 12:12 pm2009-07-13T16:12:55Zg:i a
ok…ok… I said I wans’t gonna do this but oh, man.
Bob, you are cracking me up….You don’t actually think we are afraid of you?……does your narcissism know no bounds, man?
Don’t bother answering, I already know the answer to that question.
OMG that was a good one.
Get a life… huh? and find a more useful thing to spend it on instead of pestering us.
[Reply]
Progressive Girl, the last thing in the world I think you’re afraid of is me. What I don’t understand is why you’re afraid of debating your ideas, unless you think they may not hold water. It’s real easy to say this is the way things are if you censor any opposition, and while this piece has a lot of truth to it, it also has a lot of outright lies.
Hell, I’m a crazy right-winger, what could I possibly have intelligent to add to the debate. At best all I can do is prove you right with my crazy ideas – That is, if I wasn’t censored.
[Reply]
Ahh… looks like I’ve been temporarily “emvoweled”, so I better take advantage of it.
Before I start addressing individual things, let me first take offense with the title: “10 crazy things right-wingers believe”. No, it’s not the “Crazy” that bothers me – most left-wingers think right-wingers are crazy, most right-wingers think left-wingers are crazy. What bothered me was the lack of the word “some” as in …Some right-wingers believe”, although I doubt you could find any right winger that believe all of these, or most that even believe half. Most conservatives would view this piece the same way that most liberals would view a piece written by a right-winger on what they believe. But lets look at some of the points….
Actually, before I do that let me address what I consider to be a major foundation of this piece that is flawed. It appears to me – and I could be wrong – that the argument here is between implementing the changes congress is looking at, or doing nothing. While most conservatives I know – myself included – do not believe most of these suggested changes are a good idea (and some are downright bad), no one I know is advocating keeping the system the same. There are serious problems with the healthcare system, and changes do need to be made. That’s a given. But the real options aren’t even being discussed.
Let me also say that I don’t have the answers. I have some ideas that I think might work, or maybe not, but they need to be considered. ALL ideas need to be considered. Also, a little off the point here, but why when the Patriot Act was rushed through was it a bad idea that major legislation was put up for a vote before it could be read and debated (and it was a bad idea – we found that out didn’t we), but when Obama does the same thing with the stimulus bill or his health care legislation, it’s okay? Did you know that Republicans introduced a bill that asked for a week to read the bill before a vote on it, and they were defeated?
Alright, lets hit a couple of the “10 things”. First, #1: “Only Americans have liberty. Because universal health care “takes our liberty,” and all other Western democracies have universal health care, only Americans are truly free.” First of all, I have never once heard ANY conservative ever say that only Americans have liberty. I also never heard any conservative ever claim that liberals feel only Americans have liberty, despite several statements by liberals – some of them true by the way – during the Bush years that his administration was taking our liberty. This is a huge leap of logic. Huge.
#2: “Nobody ever dies for lack of health insurance in America.” – Several of your arguments here are valid, BUT the truth is no one in America is turned away from medical care, and yes, ER care is not an ideal choice, and again this is one of the changes that we need to address, but at the same time you can’t say that everyone who lives in a government sponsored health care country lives to an old and ripe age.
#3 Every other health care system has waiting lists and rationing. I can’t respond to your linked article, as every time I clicked it my computer crashed. But I can tell you that I can find articles that say government run healthcare in (fill in the blank) countries are perfect, and I can find articles that tell you the healthcare in the same countries are abysmal. Which ones are true? They both are, because they choose to only look at either the successes or the failures, and there are successes and failures in any system. As for #4, personally (despite being unable to go to the link), I don’t believe this. I do believe that America has the best medical system in the world in a lot – not all, but a lot – of areas. That does not however mean that our system in any specific area is ideal, nor that the other countries are horrible.
#5 “Taxes are Slavery”. No they are not. Taxes are a necessity, but that doesn’t mean that all taxation is fair. More importantly here, The left is expecting that raising taxes 5% on the top 2% will pay for insurance on the “bottom” 30% (a number I will address later). Who believes in unicorns and cotton candy trees now?
#6 “Government can’t do anything right”. Well, this one I kinda do believe, not so much that they NEVER do anything right, but that they have a track record of doing a lot wrong. The examples you gave – police, fire, roads – are examples of providing a service, yes, but when you look at how they run a business – Amtrak, the post office, and health care (Medicare and Medicaid), the only consistency you will find is cost overruns, impending bankruptcy and waste. Do you want the same people spending $900 for hammers buying medical supplies?
#7: You are right about these concerns (rationing, etc….) being true with regards to private insurance, but again, I don’t know why the rosy picture on Medicare. Do you know anyone on Medicare? I’ve dealt with Medicare for both my parents and my in-laws, and I can tell you some real horror stories. I can also tell you some success stories too.
#8, #9 & #10: Let me lump these together. Lets start with the “30% uninsured” Not even close. 30% of the U.S. population is about 100 million people. No one is using that number that I’ve heard, including the left. The number I hear the most is 47 Million, which is still a big number. However, 38% of the uninsured – about 18 million – have incomes higher than $50,000 (Median household income is $48,200) – 20% of all uninsured make more than 70k a year.
27% of the uninsured are illegal immigrants. Now I know that’s a whole different argument, but let me ask you this. In Canada, Britain, or your beloved France, does their healthcare cover you if you are not a citizen. No, no it doesn’t.
This brings out 47 million down to 17 million. 20% of those 17 mil. Are between jobs, meaning they only are without insurance for a short time. That leaves us 13.6 million, of which 1/3rd are currently eligible for public health programs, but don’t bother to apply.
Obama’s health plan will cost between 1.5 to 2.5 trillion. Lets go with the low estimate. 1.5 TRILLION to address 3.3% of the population. Flat out buying private insurance for these people would cost 24 billion dollars a year This means for that 1.5 Trillion we could by insurance for these folks for the next 625 YEARS.
I could go on, but let me leave you with this one thought – this one VERY, SCARY thought. Since Obama has come into office, the government now has a huge stake in banking, insurance, the auto industry, the mortgage industry, and soon health care. That means that, in three or seven years, you could be handing all of these powers over to SARAH PALIN. And no, this is not an endorsement of Palin, but I want to alert you to a possibility.
And don’t think Palin couldn’t win. This is, after all, a country that put George W. Bush in the White House. Twice.
[Reply]
Howdy, Bob! Okay:
1) I’ve been reading this bill for a month now. Its draft was public knowledge, and the working drafts are regularly being worked on in the House and circulated to both Democrats *AND* Republicans. By the time it reaches the floor, there is not a single Congressman who has any excuse to say they don’t know what’s in the bill, and the Republicans were being dishonest when they said they needed a week to read it.
2) The only Republican proposals I’ve seen have been utter nonsense, utopian drivel that has been tried and doesn’t work in a modern healthcare system.
3) The ER only provides enough health care to keep you from dying on the spot, not enough to cure you. That’s all they’re legally required to do, and that’s all they do. The ER will not do tests beyond those needed to make sure you’re not dying, will not administer medications other than those immediately necessary to keep you from dying, and otherwise is no substitute for real health care.
4) The point is that there exist systems overseas that a) have serious government intervention in the healthcare system, yet b) have no rationing or etc. like you claim always happens. It’s a big world. There are countries beyond Britain and Canada.
5) The international numbers show that government is much more efficient at running the healthcare system than private enterprise. You may stamp your widdle feetsies and whine “that’s not so!” but facts are facts.
6) My grandmother was on Medicare for 25 years before she died. My mother is on Medicare today, and was on TriCare for some years before that (military retiree). My mother has been a healthcare provider for 35 years now and has dealt with both private and public insurers. Medicare never second-guesses her or tells her what treatment she can give her patient. Aetna, on the other hand… and the numbers agree. Surveys show that Medicare patients are happier with their insurance than private patients. Facts are facts. You can stamp your widdle feetsies and shout “It’s not so!”, but that doesn’t change the facts.
7) 15% of Americans are uninsured and get only ER medicine (enough to keep them from dying in the ER, but not enough to cure them). 15% are on Medicaid, which, because it covers the most detested and hated and spit-upon population in the United States (the poor), is funded at less than $2,000 per person and thus is only barely better than ER medicine. Your talk about the income level of some of the 15% uninsured are irrelevant — many of the non-poor uninsured lack insurance because they have pre-existing conditions and are thus “uninsurable”, and some of them are just deadbeats who are leaching off of MY insurance when they get charity care. Personally I wish the healthcare reform bill eliminated the current Medicaid system and went to a full subsidy system so the poor could buy the health insurance of their choice, or at least got dumped into the public option with the funding to cover them there, and that’s something that needs to be fixed, but that does not change the fact that 30% of Americans get health care that is inadequate.
8. Yes, in France you are covered if you are a foreigner, under the same terms as anybody else in France — i.e., if you are authorized to work in France, you pay into the Social Security fund, which in turn qualifies you for the healthcare fund applicable to your industry which then retrieves that money from Social Security when you enroll. (France has multiple not-for-profit healthcare funds for various different industries, these funds are not government entities but are highly regulated to make sure they do not improperly deny care or otherwise fail to provide the healthcare that arrogant Frenchmen want and expect).
Finally, regarding the cost, the Obama healthcare plan does not raise a doctor’s bill by one cent, does not cause a single MRI machine to be purchased, does not affect the cost of healthcare in any way at all. It will not cause one dime more to be spent on healthcare by the people of the United States of America. All it will do is shift around some of the dollars used to pay these costs. The average American will have $0 change in the contents of his wallet at the end of the month. He will be paying slightly more in taxes, slightly less in health care premiums (since he will no longer be paying for deadbeats and the public option will drive down insurance industry overhead), net will be $0. Frankly, I don’t care whether the government or a health insurance company takes it out of my wallet. I still don’t have it. $0 difference in how much is in my wallet at the end of the month, in exchange for knowing that I’ll always have healthcare even if I have the bad luck to contract leukemia next week (which costs $1M to cure and makes you uninsurable for life in the current system), sounds like a good trade-off for me. Sorry it doesn’t sound like a good trade-off for you, but so it goes — some people simply put ideology ahead of facts, and will ignore facts that don’t agree with their ideology. Which worked out real well for the USSR, didn’t it?
- Badtux the Snarky Health Care Penguin
[Reply]
Bob; what always amazes me about your posts is that you seem to think that because your views, beliefs, & ideas aren’t presented it means nobody else has considered them. Like anything else, any decision should be a combination of the best parts of all possible choices. Sadly, with intellectual honesty having been abandoned by many conservatives in favor of blindly followed dogma, much of the valid points of the right AND the left sides are lost. While I find most liberals to remain close to the center, I don’t see the same from the conservatives.
This became extremely evident on the election of Clinton to an office the GOP felt they were entitled to. This begot the fear of what they dubbed ‘Hillary-Care’, followed rapidly by dropping of Iran-Contra investigations and beginning of the Clinton ‘he’s gotta be guilty of SOMETHING!’ years led by the Great Newt who would kill Social Security as well as most other ’social programs’ he considers wasteful. To bad they don’t have the same disdain for the tax avoiding asses who move their company headquarters to a tax-haven mail drop or the big Pharma, Oil, and Insurance conglomerates the present day GOP & many other conservatives allow to run amok savaging our economy.
Knowing and associating daily as I do with folks from the full social, political, business, and even religious spectrums these days tends provide stark proof that for every Limbaugh (former GOP hater in the Daddy Bush years) follower or James Dobson devotee there are fewer and fewer non-fringe conservatives every year, whereas the fringe liberals are losing members to the more moderate liberals and the center moderates. There HAS to be a reason why, despite their loud wails, overblown offense over issues they disagree with, and the superbly adept years under an all GOP control Congress; followed by the happy & productive years of prosperity under an all GOP controlled Congress AND Administration, there is a mass exodus of conservatives to the center ground.
Like most ineffective groups with a rabidly loyal base, the GOP as it exists today refuses to just die with what little dignity it still retains. Just moving to another political camp beholden to the same failed policies and their effects on the majority of Americans doesn’t matter as much as actually doing the most good for the most citizens as opposed to aiding mainly the wealthy party backers. The Dems have their faults, but as they’re actually ‘progressive’ enough to change to embrace a better idea rather doggedly clinging to the status quo, they have to show REAL results from their efforts or their base leaves them. And NOT in favor of a ‘clone’ party, but to those who hold their views and use good judgment.
If you TRULY believe that no conservatives have said only Americans have liberty, you haven’t been listening. If you think nobody dies because they’re denied coverage, you ignore the reality that LARGE numbers of Americans get treatment, but not the life-saving care or treatment they need due to lack of funds. As to government being inept, as compared to what? The Insurance Companies that have staffs of lawyers whose only job is to tie claimants up in court until they expire or give up? Maybe as compared to the PACs of ALL parties with any clout, who spend millions to get ‘their man’ in power? Or even the Banking & Insurance or Auto Companies, we know how well they’re doing. Even the survivors who accepted help are already trying to give bonuses to their workers far in excess of what ANY earnings justify. Maybe you think that CEOs getting huge bonuses while fighting tooth & nail to oppose ANY organized labor efforts EARN their $$$! Seems by that standard, Clinton would’ve gotten a bonus for his handling of the economy. Inept? Yes, but far better than Bush Jr. Of course, in the corporate world, Dumbya’d be enjoying his bonuses right now.
What IS ineffective is mostly just 2 components of our government; First, the citizens whose apathy allows those of questionable ethics & motives to be elected and re-elected; Second, the Politicians they elect and the flunkies they appoint based on campaign contributions. The government is extremely efficient if left to do the necessary work without needless mandates, unfunded mandates, pet projects, corporate welfare, and endless rules and regulations designed to obstruct any real accomplishment. If the government IS a failure, then WE ALL are failures; because under our form of government, WE ARE the government. What we mostly aren’t, is interested or involved on the required scale needed to BE effective keepers of our own keys
[Reply]
Mike and Bad Tux, you both make some good points, but I also feel there are several holes which haven’t been addressed, and which I will address, but not just yet. As soon as I have the time though…
One quick thing though. I had hoped I made this point in my earlier response but I don’t think it came through. While I oppose Obama’s plan, that in no way means I support the Republican plan either. I think both are flawed, leaving us a (surprise, surprise) choice between deciding between two bad options, in which case no one wins. I have heard some non-political suggestions that I do support, which I will discuss this weekend.
The bottom line is, whatever option is passed, I hope like hell it works. If Obama’s plan goes into effect, I hope it is wildly successful, and if that is the case, I’ll be the first to stand up and say I was wrong. And I hope I have the opportunity to do just that, but I’m not holding my breath.
Thank you again for the opportunity to respond.
[Reply]
Okay Gang, lets try this again. Like I said Mike & Bad Tux, I’m not supporting the Republican plan (or lack of), so this isn’t a “My side is better than your side” argument. And, like most of my comments, I’ll skip around a bit.
Bad Tux, I don’t think that the Republicans were being dishonest when they said we need a week to read this bill. Yes, drafts are being circulated, but you and I both know that drafts and the actual bill are rarely the same. And at 1,100+ pages, this is not a “curl up by the fireplace and read” novella. Plus – and this comes from Obama’s own campaign website – consider the words of Obama himself: We will publish all non-emergency legislation to the website for five days, and allow the public to review and comment before the President signs it. This is a promise that Obama has already broken several times, and while you can argue this IS an emergency bill, it’s not. Yes, we need to act fast, but implementing legislation that will play a role in an industry that is 1/6th of our GNP does not need to be rushed. If Obama truly wants to have a transparent and ethical administration, he needs to live up to his own promises.
As for ER health care, I’ve already admitted that it is far from ideal, but “The ER only provides enough health care to keep you from dying on the spot, not enough to cure you” is a little bit of a stretch. I know plenty of uninsured people who have gotten quality – albeit probably not quick – healthcare through the ER on non-life threatening illnesses. Again, I’m not defending ER healthcare, I just don’t think it should be misrepresented.
You commented about foreigners in France receiving the same healthcare as French Citizens, but added “if you are authorized to work in France”. Exactly. If you are there legally, you get the same coverage. I’m not complaining about covering legal immigrants. As for the comments that it’s a big world beyond Canada and Britain, you’re right, and I often hear pundits comment on systems other than these two. I think these two are discussed the most often because they are two countries that Americans consider most similar to ours, especially Canada being so close. And wasn’t it Michael Moore in “Sicko” (yes, I watched it) who mainly focused on these two countries (with a little bit of France thrown in). As for the “There is no rationing going on” comments, of course there is. Is it as bad as the GOP makes it sound? Probably not. Is it as cheery as the left (yourself included) makes it sound? Nope. Like you said, “facts are facts”. I will say that in my research I have found France to be a stronger model than Great Britain or Canada, (the Dutch seem to look good too) and I think there is a lot we can learn from their system. There are several articles glorifying the French system that the right ignore. There are plenty of articles that point out issues with the French system that the left ignore. Both are equally irresponsible.
“The international numbers show that government is much more efficient at running the healthcare system than private enterprise”. In some cases I feel this is probably true. My biggest issue is that OUR government has not shown itself to be efficient in running anything. Capable, yes. Efficient, no.
“30% of Americans get health care that is inadequate.” Again, this is a number that fluctuates depending on who is reporting. Honestly, given the system we share today, I think this number is low. I think most of us get inadequate healthcare, even those of us with great insurance. I’m lucky to be covered by a strong plan, but that doesn’t mean I still don’t have hassles, billing errors, and multiple hoops to jump through. On the flip side, a recent NY Times survey found 78% of Americans are satisfied with their insurance coverage, so this is really an issue of who do we believe. And I don’t have an answer for that one.
As for your glowing endorsement of Medicare, like I said in my original comments there are plenty of success stories with Medicare, and plenty of horror stories, and focusing on one side – regardless of which side that is – is irresponsible. If you want I can give you personal stories from my family that illustrate both sides, but what does that prove.
As for “some people simply put ideology ahead of facts” I will admit that on some levels I am probably doing that. So are you and your fellow supporters. When was the last time that either the Democrats or the Republicans were right – completely right – about anything? And like I said, both sides are pushing their ideology on the other, while dozens of other options aren’t even being discussed. Look, if you took the ten greatest minds in the world, and put them to work on this problem – without any political or ideological influence – they’re going to come up with ten different solutions, and regardless of what compromise they come up with, it’s not going to be perfect. Some groups will see huge improvements in their health care, most will see little or no change, and some, hopefully a small percentage, will see a reduction in their care. But don’t kid yourself that those pushing this current proposal aren’t putting ideology ahead of facts. They did it with the disastrous stimulus they passed, and they’ll do it here as well.
Finally – at least for Bad Tux’s comments – with regards to the cost. If it works out like you say, and I end up paying $200 a month more in taxes and $200 a month less in health care, I’m fine with that. IF it works out. Consider this from an AP story today: “Douglas Elmendorf, head of the Congressional Budget Office, told Senate lawmakers Thursday that the legislation does not include the “fundamental changes” necessary to rein in federal health spending. If anything, he said, the legislation would increase costs.” This is not a comment by Limbaugh or O’Reilly, but by the head of Obama’s own budget office. Look, whether we’re talking about implementing a Democratic backed plan or a Republican backed plan, the one thing both would have in common is it’s going to cost at least twice as much as we were told. Find me one that didn’t.
Now Mike, let me just address a couple of your comments. I won’t bother with the ones concerning Clinton (Bill or Hillary), Newt, Rush, James Dobson or Dubya, as we are not discussing these folks, nor am I concerned with or supporting anything that group has said (actually, I will bring up Newt in a bit, but only because you did first). This is a discussion on an issue, not a trouncing of a ideology. If McCain had won and was pushing this through, I’d still be opposed.
As for the comment “While I find most liberals to remain close to the center, I don’t see the same from the conservatives”, That is because you are basically liberal. Ask a conservative, and he or she would say “While I find most conservatives to remain close to the center, I don’t see the same from the liberals”, and both would be telling the truth. And no, I’m not amazed that because my views, beliefs, & ideas aren’t presented it means nobody else has considered them. This is a Liberal Blog, I expect it to present a liberal slant. That’s okay, it’s just that I hope at the same time you are open to comments from the other side. I really doubt there isn’t a single contributor here who hasn’t gone to a conservative website, read something they disagreed with, and responded. I thought that was the whole idea. AWOP Rule number 3: Spirited discussion is encouraged.
As for your opinion that liberals are leaving the fringes and moving to the center, while conservatives are leaving the center and moving towards the fringes, it is just that: an opinion. Your mind set of what is fringe – on either side – probably doesn’t sync up to mine, for which I am sure you are greatly appreciative. Look at two groups: Those on the right attending Tea-Bag Rallies, and those on the Left attending anti-war rallies. Which group is the fringe? I can pretty much guess that a liberal and a conservative would give you different answers. Me, I see two groups passionate about what they believe in, and doing something about it. As long as neither is advocating violence against the other, more power to them.
I am a little disappointed in the textbook “GOP/Big Oil/Pharma/etc.” spewing, because I know you are better than those clichés Mike. I don’t always agree with you, but I almost always enjoy reading you because I feel your opinions are intelligent, well-thought out, and always above the kind of argument presented here.
And just because the insurance companies are inept, that doesn’t mean we should be okay with the same from government run care.
As for your final paragraph (What IS ineffective is mostly….), now THAT is the kind of Mike S. I look forward to, a take no prisoners approach that isn’t geared to repeat the political talking points of any given party.
Which leads me to Newt. In your first response to this article you stated “…. The same folks whose ‘leader,’ the NEWT, clearly stated in 1994 that ‘Medicare will be allowed to die and wither on the vine’.” The only problem with this is that Gingrich never said this. Oh, if this was coming from most people on the left – hell, if this was coming from most people on the right – I’d probably let it go, but Mike, I know you are smarter than the average commentator, and I’d be very, very surprised if you hadn’t heard the truth behind this line. Oh, that hasn’t stopped the left from continuing to tell this lie, because if you tell a lie enough, sooner or later most people believe it.
Even Al Gore stated on “This Week with David Brinkley” on 8/25/96, “The Republican party, specifically Speaker Gingrich, said that he wanted to make changes that would cause Medicare to wither on the vine.” Gore knew this was a lie, but he spread it anyhow. Problem is, I’ve never considered you Mike to be one who would pass on lies.
Now let’s look at the FULL quote. What Gingrich really said on 10/24/95 was that the Republicans believed that Medicare bureaucracy would wither on the vine, not Medicare benefits. There’s a big difference! The unedited quote: “What do you think the Health Care Financing Administration is? It’s a centralized command bureaucracy. It’s everything we’re telling Boris Yeltsin to get rid of. Now we don’t get rid of it in Round one because we don’t think that’s politically smart and we don’t think that’s the right way to go through a transition. But we believe it’s going to wither on the vine because we think people are voluntarily going to leave it – voluntarily.”
Over and over this statement was played in the media – except the statement was shown as “We believe it’s [Medicare] going to wither on the vine” The media would place the word MEDICARE as the reference to “it” when Newt was referring to MEDICARE BUREAUCRACY. And the media didn’t care.
Well, some media did care – CNN’s Inside Politics’ “Adwatch” evaluated the spot on July 15 and determined that it was “just dishonest.” But the majority went right along with the lies.
[Reply]
Bob, I’m merely relating what LOCAL politics is showing, and that is that the ’super loyal GOP’ are moving to the ‘outer edges’ as that’s where the remaining GOP power mostly is here. The ‘liberals’ (me too I guess) are leaving the Greens & similar groups along with deserting the extremist Dems and going Independent (myself and a great majority of the voting population in Maine). This is not to say they’re leaving their liberalism, just that they see the power base as being ‘moderate’ and where they can most easily effect change.
As for Newt, I should have been clearer. It was his disdain for government programs I was trying to address. As far as Medicare Bureaucracy, you ARE aware the actual ‘guts’ of Medicare are in the hands of Insurance companies that contract to administer the program for profit.
Lastly, as for my take on the various greedy entities like Big OIL, PHARMA, etc, a ‘partial’ Newt quote fully expresses my opinion of most of today’s Conservative’s grasp of the reality of the ‘BIG’ corporation’s actions & goals :
“The idea that a congressman would be tainted by accepting money from private industry or private sources is essentially a socialist argument.” Newt G.
Kinda expresses the inability to accept that with which they disagree as being factual.
I know you explore ‘facts’, but having seen BOTH parties in power from close up from 1962 until retirement in the 1990s and close local involvement since, I KNOW from 1st hand observation that 1) there is a difference in goals AND methods of operations 2) both have good AND bad folks in powerful positions 3) ‘usually’ the good folks outnumber the bad or chaos would reign supreme 4) & final, some essentially flawed &, in my opinion, ‘evil’ folks occasionally get in control due to citizen apathy.
This is made worse when coupled with greedy and/or incompetent people. I’ve known the top 2 of the last administration and the guy who made W prez since the late 60s. One thing I firmly believe to be true now as it was then based on personal observation; the first is inept, the second is nastiness brought to perfection, and the last is merely corrupted by lust for power & influence.
As for your (“The ER only provides enough health care to keep you from dying on the spot, not enough to cure you” is a little bit of a stretch) statement. You undoubtedly DO know of GREAT ER results, but tempered from YOUR experiences. Apparently they’re a bit different to MY experiences. In MY world that consists of a great number of folks that fall through the cracks, death and/or serious complications due to inadequate care is far too common. This is directly related to money, NOT the ER folks. If the money isn’t there to pay for treatment, drugs, follow-on care, etc it isn’t there period! Not a ‘policy’, ‘opinion’, ‘viewpoint’, ‘political position’, just a sad FACT. There ARE folks dying for lack of ER ability to provide necessary care. Despite some people’s opinions, hospitals DO have budgetary restraints imposed by numerous factors from Medicare/Medicaid underfunding at the federal level and Insurance Company’s refusal to pay for treatment for various technicalities, to rising costs of salaries, materials, drugs, etc.
This problem AND the VA Medical care problems have been exacerbated by the former Congresses and Administration, especially from 2001 to 2006. Just saying you put an increase in the budget request sent to Congress or even having the funds allocated is DIFFERENT from actually APPLYING the funds. When they get unspent as authorized due to more ‘pressing matters’ such as Iraq War, no-bid contracts, tax cuts, etc, the claim “we asked for and received an increase of” $___? is far from being the same as we PROVIDED the funds allocated as allocated to the VA or Medical entities they were intended for. Just another sad fact. Those with get and those without often go wanting the great care available in the USA.
[Reply]
Mike, you make a lot of good points, but the point you make in your final statement couldn’t represent my concern with government run health care better. You state, and I believe you to be 100% correct, that the problem with VA Medical care has been exacerbated by the former Congresses and Administration. So if the sections of healthcare that are currently controlled by government are subject to the ideology of the administration and party in charge – and you yourself early admitted that “some essentially flawed &, in my opinion, ‘evil’ folks occasionally get in control due to citizen apathy” – why would we want to put the health of the country at risk like that.
And again, I want to emphasize that I am not advocating “business as usual” here. We need Reform. As for Newt, there is a reason that he and millions of other Americans have a “disdain for government programs” – a great many of them either simply do not work, or they work on such a high level of inefficiency that they do more harm than good. Is the government incapable of doing right? Of course not, BUT no business in America would last five years if it was run the way a majority of government programs were. Hell, a lot of them tried, and look at the mess we’re in.
Frankly, if we are going to have government involvement in healthcare, and I am not opposed to that, I would rather see it done on the state level. Why are we giving the federal government so much power over our lives. If we’re going to do that, then we can’t pick and choose what we like or what we don’t. I know most of the readers/writers here are gay. Remember that you want the same government to run your healthcare that gve you the “Defense of Marraige Act”. And that was done under Clinton. Did they get that one right? Then why is there reason to believe they’ll get this one right. “Well, because they have the best of intentions.” I’m sure they had the best of intentions in 1996 with DOMA too.
Look, America is made up of red states and blue states. Of course, not everyone in these states ascribes to the political leanings of the state as a whole, but if, lets say Texas and New York were both to implement a state level health care plan, I would bet they would be a lot different, and THEN we could see which one works. And when the best of intentions don’t work, it’s a bitch to change an entire state’s healthcare system, but a piece of cake compared to doing it on a national level. I bet you at the state level they’ed even give you time to read the bill before it was implemented.
As for the greed that’s created by big business, what makes you think it’s limited to conservative corruption? There is a great deal of corruption on the conservative side, and an equal amount of corruption on the left. Those on either side who think they’re side is cleaner than the other side are just fooling themselves. I think you know this Mike, and the one comment that I’d heard you make over and over again that I couldn’t agree with you more on is that they all need to be thrown out. Kennedy, Pelosi, Reed, Frank, Dood…. They all need to go. So do McCain, Brownback, Ensign, Graham and the rest of the Republicans. Old ideologies do not produce new ideas.
[Reply]
Bob, I surrender. DOMA was on Clinton’s watch, pushed through as a trade-off for something Clinton & Dems wanted. Pushed through by the GOP and their large majority. The same conservative folks that brought you ‘Don’t ask don’t tell’ for the military. I worked closely with the military since 1963 and gays were ALWAYS serving quietly and serving as well or better than the rest of the military folks. Nearly everyone knew who was gay and who wasn’t and unless it came to the attention of a homophobe, bigot, zealot, or somebody had a personal beef with the person and resorted to the gay rules as revenge, it STAYED private WITHOUT a ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy. That was pushed by the same religious right that pushed for DOMA. It was also a good way for Clinton to alienate a large group of liberals.
This statement of yours it comparing apples & oranges. “BUT no business in America would last five years if it was run the way a majority of government programs were” The government isn’t meant to make money, big business is. I never claimed that liberal run businesses were less greedy & corrupt, but a lifetime of dealing with huge conglomerates HAS shown me one truth: the biggest that are greediest tend to support the GOP almost exclusively, the same divide seems to be worldwide in scope. Not even close in numbers. YES, there are the few liberal backers that stand out, but working with charities as closely as I do, I KNOW where the most money and other support comes from, unless there’s a benefit in the donation for the giver the right leaning give little. The gifts from liberal leaning businesses and groups far exceed those received from the right. The right tends to give mostly to religious concerns they belong to. There’s nothing wrong with that. The problem is the amount some spend erecting grand monuments and luxurious buildings for practice of their faith. Their money, their right. Just don’t donate to a religious group to fund these grand edifices that cost far more than the charitable or civic contributions they make. Yes, there ARE small churches all over, but in most cases the donations go to upkeep as the congregations are smaller too. MANY on the right are extremely generous, but they’re about as numerous as right leaning GLBT people in my experience. That experience was garnered while working all over the world AND most US states at one time or another.
Finally, you accuse me & others of mis-direction by quoting Newt out of context and being influenced mostly by various interest groups or folks. I find the ideas about the inner workings of government held by citizens of all stripes to be as off base as you believe we are. The constant hammering from the right about inefficiencies rings hollow when you’ve worked with BOTH government systems and corporations of all sorts. To get approval for needed items is much easier in the government, as is overcharging via loosely written contracts. Long range planning is rarely practiced in today’s corporate world where take the profits & run is the preferred course of action. It’s usually politicians and their appointees that create the rules governing or restricting these contracts. Unlike the corporate world, the government seldom has the option to cancel, return, or question pricing due to contracts written by or with the cooperation of the seller and pushed through by the same politicos they write them with.
Folks tend to forget that the same jerks in both parties that help these travesties continue to rob the taxpayers were hired BY the voters and work FOR the voters, in theory anyway. You get the government you earn, or let run amok. I DO agree, throw them ALL out! The argument that ‘legislative memory’ would be lost is a ruse as term limits here have proved. The career government employees’ retain their memory, and the memory of legislative traditions SHOULD be forgotten in the most part.
[Reply]
Bob, I didn’t intend to imply right leaning folks weren’t generous. But I find their generosity gets channeled through organizations that are limited in the number of types of needy or activists they’ll back. If I need help or money quickly, I know to go to liberals for money, time, labor, materials, etc for most causes or recipients. I go to the conservative groups when I quickly need time, labor, or materials, and some funding. I also know NOT to bother approaching conservatives for support for a great number of causes. The liberals tend to abstain from aiding anti-GLBT, anti-abortion, anti-sex education, anti-birth control, and like causes that are based on religious dogma, bigotry, or other form of discrimination or hate based.
General rule we go by in most organizations is that if the group is titled ‘anti-’ it’s conservatives, some moderates & liberals(carefully selected) we go to. If it’s ‘pro-’ it’s liberals, moderates, and some conservatives(carefully selected) we approach. Not opinion, experience. As I said, it tends to be a world-wide trait.
[Reply]
Mike, my goal was never to argue that Liberals or conservatives are more generous. My goal was to discuss healthcare. As for your comment “The government isn’t meant to make money, big business is”, that is true (by the way, small businesses goal is to make money too). But even a non-profit business wouldn’t survive under the direction that most government programs work.
[Reply]
Bob, the one fact you fail to grasp is that I worked FOR the government at a high level and interacted intimately with various corporations(AND small businesses), I’m also the owner of several small businesses and partnered in a few others; lastly, I work for, with, and on behalf of a number of non-profits. My experience over 45+ years belies your statement that: “But even a non-profit business wouldn’t survive under the direction that MOST government programs work”.
True SOME government programs are poorly run, but MOST are fairly efficient to extremely efficient. The majority of programs that perform poorly suffer from two afflictions. 1) they’re directly controlled by politicos, either elected or appointed by those who are elected. 2) they’re run by ‘FOR profit’ entities that are poorly monitored due to underfunding of government oversight programs by those elected to oversee, fund, and support them.
A supreme example is the VA medical organization. It WAS government run by very capable people and provided fair to excellent care until 2001, when it was placed in the hands of persons with heavy involvement and interest in GOP political agendas. This was the start of a long string of politically motivated appointments vice appointing persons best suited and qualified for the position with less regard for political views. That was the start of a general decline in quality and availability of services. As a service related disabled veteran it only affected me last, but many more were badly disadvantaged before the cuts got to me. We have now returned to appointing persons with the health and well-being of veterans as their prime concern vice being committed to political whims of ANY parties.
When you appoint unqualified persons and our elected officials approve their appointment, the failure is ultimately the failure of the citizens to demand accountability from their choices to operate the government. I believe you realize this and support this view. If government is inefficient it’s OUR fault for allowing it.
One of the best things that could occur would be a Constitutional Amendment limiting the ‘political’ free speech where it no longer means ‘money represents free speech’. Money also represents power, inequity, and often corruption. I’d be ecstatic to have ’sound bites’ limited to a short period of time and replaced with honest discussions akin to ‘town hall’ style campaigning. Until the money and lust for favoritism & gain is eliminated from the election process and replaced by citizen involvement at all levels, no true change will be achieved that benefits ALL citizens.
[Reply]
Bob….the preceding wasn’t meant to boast; merely to point out that I’m intimately familiar with the workings of the mentioned entities and my experiences directly conflict with the ‘common knowledge’ we ALL seem to have about all of them, myself included. The old adage ‘do 999 good deeds and few remember it; do one bad deed and few forget it’ applies to our beliefs about most things we have limited personal knowledge of and can taint even that which we know unless we exercise great caution in drawing conclusions.
[Reply]
Look Mike, I have no doubt that your more experienced in these matters than I am, and that you have more experience with several more agencies than I do. Most of my one-on-one knowledge regarding the inner workings of the federal government comes from people I am very close to, and some of the stories of standard operating procedures would make you ill. That said, my best friend in Iowa is the head of a state run agency, and I can tel you that I see his department as a fine example of how government should be run.
I’m not trying to promote a cliche that the government is totally inept at everything they try, and yes, some of my collegues are saying just that, but it is also true that the general feeling on the left is that “Big Business” is evil and corrupt. I can tell you from MY 30+ years of experience that I have worked for several nationally and internationally run businesses, most of them among the leaders in their industries (as well as some small and mid-sized businesses as well), and I feel confident in saying that each and every one of those business was as ethical and morally competent as can be. Sure, you may find a few bad individuals in each business, and more often than not these individuals get what’s coming to them (I am a huge believer in Karma), so the general discussion of the evils of big business doesn’t hold much water with me. No, I’m not blind to “evil” in the business world, no more than I doubt you are blind to evil in the public sector.
Look, you said it yourself in the discussion of the VA. you stated “It WAS government run by very capable people and provided fair to excellent care until 2001, when it was placed in the hands of persons with heavy involvement and interest in GOP political agendas. This was the start of a long string of politically motivated appointments vice appointing persons best suited and qualified for the position with less regard for political views. That was the start of a general decline in quality and availability of services”
Whats to stop this administration, the next administration, or any other administration after that from following the same road the VA did in 2001? Sure, the same argument can be made for a privately run company, BUT i think changing leadership at corporation X can happen a lot faster than changing those in charge of Washington. How long have we stuck with abysmal leadership in Washington now?
Remember, don’t hand over any power to Obama that you wouldn’t just as freely hand over to Bush. Sure, Bush is gone, but there will be another one. Maybe his or her name won’t be Bush, but we’ll get another one. If you’d be happy with Ol’ G.W. running health care, I say “go for it”. After all, he did such a great job with the V.A.
[Reply]
Bob, seems we actually agree on most of the issue of politicians.. However, other than those put in place by elections, changing out folks in government is pretty swift. No board meetings, stockholder meetings, golden parachute pay-offs to resign, just a simple: ‘Clear out your things, your replacement will be here in the morning.’ Done it many times. The term ’serves at the pleasure of’ means exactly that. Even elected people are subject to public AND corporate sentiments and approval. An involved electorate is the best preventative for inept folks at the top. !00% of Americans are governed by a president elected by about 30%-40% of eligible voters (or less).
The bad part is that those who stick it out until election time manage to use campaign dollars to ‘rewrite’ their past in a more favorable light, by air time for sound bites, and manage to dupe the less discerning or rabidly dogmatic folks into re-electing them. Look at Alaskan legislators or Massachusetts Senators for examples of what money can overcome. That the moon landing and Chappaquiddick happened simultaneously helped the Senator from Mass. too.
The world and all it’s workings has ample places for scoundrels to prosper, especially when aided by unethical backers and in the presence of a ’sleeping’ public. Once in place, ANY evil, inept, or devious entity is harder to remove than it would have been to prevent them from gaining their position.
[Reply]
Question: Don’t you guys have a life? It’s a beautiful weekend. Go out and play, either with your kids or by yourself or with your wife.
After reading Dennis Kucinich’s latest amendment to the bill, which for the first time will allow states to set up their own single-player plan without being sued under ERISA, I’m all for it. The Governator is on his way out here in California, and we’ve already passed single-payer twice and had it vetoed twice. Next time will be a Democratic governor signing it, and then the rest of you guys can go do what you want.
[Reply]
Badtux…Sounds great, especially as today’s kinda nice here. Trouble is, the missus is just out of hospital after major surgery & I’m busy playing nurse Injun. Since I wuz bored inna meantime, pulling Bob’s chain was an easy diversion between nurse calls & Tour de France watching.
Eventually everyone will be on a single-payer type program as the increases caused by the insurance & drug industries aren’t sustainable much longer. Maine already got a sort of ’single-payer’ program forced on us as all but one insurance provider of any size other than Medicare/Medicaid & Military programs left when they were forced to limit their rate increases to levels justified by inflation rather than the 20%-50%+ increases they were demanding yearly.
Most ordinary folks here are self employed or work for small biz as there’s really not much corporate type stuff here. Thus, most ordinary folks here are now underinsured or uninsured. Tax increases to pay for increased public health funding are now decried by the same folks here who screamed that the insurance and drug interests here were gonna go bankrupt due to sensible regs. Instead, the drug guys adapted to less profits & insurance interests pretty much all left to invest in the newly deregulated hi-risk banking sector. Considering the last year in the investment banking & hedge fund biz, they might’ve been better off limiting their profits as requested. I bet their ‘Profits are down’ reports now say ‘profits are missing’. hehehe
By the way, I’m also liking the 1st impression I got from Kucinich’s proposal. Sensible AND do-able!!
[Reply]
Bad Tux,
Haven’t seen Kucinich’s amendment yet, will check it out. As for Arnold leaving office, it was California politics that drove me to leave the Golden State and return to the Heartland. And while Arnold has been a problem, I doubt that a new governor – Democrat or Republican – will do one bit of damn good as long as the core of that legislature remains.
That said, it has been a beautiful day, and I have enjoyed it greatly. While my wife is picking up my daughter from cheerleading practice, I thought I would take a quick moment to reply, but Mike, it looks like we’ve kind of found a common ground here. Regardless of what passes or doesn’t, we can all hope that it fixes some of the problems we are currently facing.
[Reply]