Bill Moyers speaks with former insurance insider/pr man

[Emma]

just like those on the right parrot and puppet the talking points of the insurance industry and have for years?
BILL MOYERS: I have a memo, from Frank Luntz. I have a memo written by Frank Luntz. He's the Republican strategist who we discovered, in the spring, has written the script for opponents of health care reform. "First," he says, "you have to pretend to support it. Then use phrases like, "government takeover," "delayed care is denied care," "consequences of rationing," "bureaucrats, not doctors prescribing medicine." That was a memo, by Frank Luntz, to the opponents of health care reform in this debate. Now watch this clip.

REP. JOHN BOEHNER: The forthcoming plan from Democratic leaders will make health care more expensive, limit treatments, ration care, and put bureaucrats in charge of medical decisions rather than patients and doctors.

SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL: Americans need to realize that when someone says "government option," what could really occur is a government takeover that soon could lead to government bureaucrats denying and delaying care, and telling Americans what kind of care they can have.

SEN. JON KYL: Washington run healthcare would diminish Americans' access to quality care, leading to denials, shortages and long delays for treatment.

REP. JOE WILSON: How will a government run health plan not lead to the same rationing of care that we have seen in other countries?

REP. TOM PRICE: We don‘t want to put the government, we don't want to put bureaucrats between a doctor and a patient.

BILL MOYERS: Why do politicians puppet messages like that?

WENDELL POTTER: Well, they are ideologically aligned with the industry. They want to believe that the free market system can and should work in this country, like it does in other industries. So they don't understand from an insider's perspective like I have, what that actually means, and the consequences of that to Americans.

They parrot those comments, without really realizing what the real situation is.

I was watching MSNBC one afternoon. And I saw Congressman Zach Wamp from Tennessee. He's just down the road from where I grew up, in Chattanooga. And he was talking-- he was asked a question about health care reform. I think it was just a day or two after the president's first-- health care reform summit. And he was one of the ones Republicans put on the tube.

And he was saying that, you know, the health care problem is not necessarily as bad as we think. That of the uninsured people, half of them are that way because they want to "go naked."

REP. ZACH WAMP: Half the people that are uninsured today choose to remain uninsured. Half of them don't have any choice but half of them choose to, what's called, go naked, and just take the risk of getting sick. They end up in the emergency room costing you and me a whole lot more money.

WENDELL POTTER: He used the word naked. It's an industry term for those who, presumably, choose not to buy insurance, because they don't want to. They don't want to pay the premiums. So he was saying that half... Well, first of all, it's nothing like that. It was an absolutely ridiculous comment. But it's an example of a member of Congress buying what the insurance industry is peddling.

BILL MOYERS: Back in 1993, the Republican propagandist, William Kristol, urged his party to block any health care proposal, in order to prevent the Democrats from being seen as the quote, "generous protector of the middle class." But today, you've got some Democrats who are going along with the industry.

Let me know when you sign up for the "Cash For Kidneys" program.

again...typical rightie response..ignore facts, dont bother to read and continue to criticize based on conjecture and ignorant ASSumptions.

I have been going 'round and 'round with these people for months now and swore I was going to stop even responding until they decided to approach the discussion from a point of reality; yet I keep getting sucked in.

All this crap about selling kidneys, killing off the old folks, outlawing private insurance, "providing healthcare for 1/2 of Mexico"... utterly ridiculous and proves they don't want to debate the actual provisions in the bill but rather make shit up (which tells me their position is weak and they actually have no argument against what's been proposed).

 

[Emma]

Let me know when you sign up for the "Cash For Kidneys" program.

again...typical rightie response..ignore facts, dont bother to read and continue to criticize based on conjecture and ignorant ASSumptions.

what are the facts? how will this be done?

How will WHAT be done?

 

[Life_Long_Dem!]

Let me know when you sign up for the "Cash For Kidneys" program.

again...typical rightie response..ignore facts, dont bother to read and continue to criticize based on conjecture and ignorant ASSumptions.

I have been going 'round and 'round with these people for months now and swore I was going to stop even responding until they decided to approach the discussion from a point of reality; yet I keep getting sucked in.

All this crap about selling kidneys, killing off the old folks, outlawing private insurance, "providing healthcare for 1/2 of Mexico"... utterly ridiculous and proves they don't want to debate the actual provisions in the bill but rather make shit up (which tells me their position is weak and they actually have no argument against what's been proposed).

same here. I frequent another board and have done the same with the righties there and it seems there is NO getting through to these people AT ALL....the true facts are there slapping them in the face and all they do to respond is petty childish name calling and puppeting right wing and insurance industry talking points.

 

[WillowTree]

start with half of mexico,, the democrats voted down the Heller amendment. now what will preclude us from treating 1/2 of mexico.. explain how that will work> please and thank you.

 

[WillowTree]

Let me know when you sign up for the "Cash For Kidneys" program.

again...typical rightie response..ignore facts, dont bother to read and continue to criticize based on conjecture and ignorant ASSumptions.

I have been going 'round and 'round with these people for months now and swore I was going to stop even responding until they decided to approach the discussion from a point of reality; yet I keep getting sucked in.

All this crap about selling kidneys, killing off the old folks, outlawing private insurance, "providing healthcare for 1/2 of Mexico"... utterly ridiculous and proves they don't want to debate the actual provisions in the bill but rather make shit up (which tells me their position is weak and they actually have no argument against what's been proposed).

seems you cannot explain why we are wrong though hummmm?

 

[Life_Long_Dem!]

again...typical rightie response..ignore facts, dont bother to read and continue to criticize based on conjecture and ignorant ASSumptions.

I have been going 'round and 'round with these people for months now and swore I was going to stop even responding until they decided to approach the discussion from a point of reality; yet I keep getting sucked in.

All this crap about selling kidneys, killing off the old folks, outlawing private insurance, "providing healthcare for 1/2 of Mexico"... utterly ridiculous and proves they don't want to debate the actual provisions in the bill but rather make shit up (which tells me their position is weak and they actually have no argument against what's been proposed).

seems you cannot explain why we are wrong though hummmm?

what is YOUR base in fact for these claims and dont say fox news or any right wing pundunt site...where is FACTUAL proof of your claims?

 

[Emma]

so are you or are you not going to tell me how this plan will work? who will be denied, why, at what age, and how much it will cost, and who will write the laws and oversee the industry? just basic facts please.

See what I mean? No one can tell you who will be denied; and there is no magic number for what age everyone will be denied (whatever it is they are denying). I can tell you that decisions about treatment options are based upon risk vs benefit. Age IS a factor in some cases, because of co-morbidities that are more prevalent in older people which cause the risks to outweigh the benefits. But that doesn't preclude them from receiving treatment.

Cost estimates are out there if you want to look them up; personally, I do expect that costs will rise initially, then decline as so many more (not all, of course) have access to preventative/maintenance care. And frankly, though I can't speak for my colleagues or docs I work with, I'm tired of crisis management and putting out fires. Sure, there are still going to be people who won't go to a doc until they are in serious shape. That's a given. But in the long term, this is going to save money now spent treating preventable complications (and the complications of those complications), disability benefits, lost productivity, etc.

"Who will oversee the industry?"

http://docs.house.gov/edlabor/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf (starting on page 41)

 

[WillowTree]

I have been going 'round and 'round with these people for months now and swore I was going to stop even responding until they decided to approach the discussion from a point of reality; yet I keep getting sucked in.

All this crap about selling kidneys, killing off the old folks, outlawing private insurance, "providing healthcare for 1/2 of Mexico"... utterly ridiculous and proves they don't want to debate the actual provisions in the bill but rather make shit up (which tells me their position is weak and they actually have no argument against what's been proposed).

seems you cannot explain why we are wrong though hummmm?

what is YOUR base in fact for these claims and dont say fox news or any right wing pundunt site...where is FACTUAL proof of your claims?

I have already told you.. the congress is planning on cutting 500 billion dollars from medicare,, so,, who gets denied???? the congress voted down the Heller amendment so what precludes us from paying for 1/2 of Mexico? Tell me how it's gonna work?

 

[Emma]

seems you cannot explain why we are wrong though hummmm?

what is YOUR base in fact for these claims and dont say fox news or any right wing pundunt site...where is FACTUAL proof of your claims?

I have already told you.. the congress is planning on cutting 500 billion dollars from medicare,, so,, who gets denied???? the congress voted down the Heller amendment so what precludes us from paying for 1/2 of Mexico? Tell me how it's gonna work?

Can you please provide links. Thanks.

I've now been up almost 24 hours. I need to get a nap and will check back. Have a good day.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

just like those on the right parrot and puppet the talking points of the insurance industry and have for years?
BILL MOYERS: I have a memo, from Frank Luntz. I have a memo written by Frank Luntz. He's the Republican strategist who we discovered, in the spring, has written the script for opponents of health care reform. "First," he says, "you have to pretend to support it. Then use phrases like, "government takeover," "delayed care is denied care," "consequences of rationing," "bureaucrats, not doctors prescribing medicine." That was a memo, by Frank Luntz, to the opponents of health care reform in this debate. Now watch this clip.

REP. JOHN BOEHNER: The forthcoming plan from Democratic leaders will make health care more expensive, limit treatments, ration care, and put bureaucrats in charge of medical decisions rather than patients and doctors.

SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL: Americans need to realize that when someone says "government option," what could really occur is a government takeover that soon could lead to government bureaucrats denying and delaying care, and telling Americans what kind of care they can have.

SEN. JON KYL: Washington run healthcare would diminish Americans' access to quality care, leading to denials, shortages and long delays for treatment.

REP. JOE WILSON: How will a government run health plan not lead to the same rationing of care that we have seen in other countries?

REP. TOM PRICE: We don‘t want to put the government, we don't want to put bureaucrats between a doctor and a patient.

BILL MOYERS: Why do politicians puppet messages like that?

WENDELL POTTER: Well, they are ideologically aligned with the industry. They want to believe that the free market system can and should work in this country, like it does in other industries. So they don't understand from an insider's perspective like I have, what that actually means, and the consequences of that to Americans.

They parrot those comments, without really realizing what the real situation is.

I was watching MSNBC one afternoon. And I saw Congressman Zach Wamp from Tennessee. He's just down the road from where I grew up, in Chattanooga. And he was talking-- he was asked a question about health care reform. I think it was just a day or two after the president's first-- health care reform summit. And he was one of the ones Republicans put on the tube.

And he was saying that, you know, the health care problem is not necessarily as bad as we think. That of the uninsured people, half of them are that way because they want to "go naked."

REP. ZACH WAMP: Half the people that are uninsured today choose to remain uninsured. Half of them don't have any choice but half of them choose to, what's called, go naked, and just take the risk of getting sick. They end up in the emergency room costing you and me a whole lot more money.

WENDELL POTTER: He used the word naked. It's an industry term for those who, presumably, choose not to buy insurance, because they don't want to. They don't want to pay the premiums. So he was saying that half... Well, first of all, it's nothing like that. It was an absolutely ridiculous comment. But it's an example of a member of Congress buying what the insurance industry is peddling.

BILL MOYERS: Back in 1993, the Republican propagandist, William Kristol, urged his party to block any health care proposal, in order to prevent the Democrats from being seen as the quote, "generous protector of the middle class." But today, you've got some Democrats who are going along with the industry.

Let me know when you sign up for the "Cash For Kidneys" program.

again...typical rightie response..ignore facts, dont bother to read and continue to criticize based on conjecture and ignorant ASSumptions.

When the Clintons wanted to nationalize health care they claimed that there were 47MM uninsured Americans.

Today, there are 47MM uninsured people with 12MM of them being illegal aliens so there are 35MM uninsured Americans.

That's real progress

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Let me know when you sign up for the "Cash For Kidneys" program.

again...typical rightie response..ignore facts, dont bother to read and continue to criticize based on conjecture and ignorant ASSumptions.

I have been going 'round and 'round with these people for months now and swore I was going to stop even responding until they decided to approach the discussion from a point of reality; yet I keep getting sucked in.

All this crap about selling kidneys, killing off the old folks, outlawing private insurance, "providing healthcare for 1/2 of Mexico"... utterly ridiculous and proves they don't want to debate the actual provisions in the bill but rather make shit up (which tells me their position is weak and they actually have no argument against what's been proposed).

So you don't know what "float" is...that's understandable

 

[GHook93]

start with half of mexico,, the democrats voted down the Heller amendment. now what will preclude us from treating 1/2 of mexico.. explain how that will work> please and thank you.

You do realize we treat illegals for free nowadays?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

so are you or are you not going to tell me how this plan will work? who will be denied, why, at what age, and how much it will cost, and who will write the laws and oversee the industry? just basic facts please.

See what I mean? No one can tell you who will be denied; and there is no magic number for what age everyone will be denied (whatever it is they are denying). I can tell you that decisions about treatment options are based upon risk vs benefit. Age IS a factor in some cases, because of co-morbidities that are more prevalent in older people which cause the risks to outweigh the benefits. But that doesn't preclude them from receiving treatment.

Cost estimates are out there if you want to look them up; personally, I do expect that costs will rise initially, then decline as so many more (not all, of course) have access to preventative/maintenance care. And frankly, though I can't speak for my colleagues or docs I work with, I'm tired of crisis management and putting out fires. Sure, there are still going to be people who won't go to a doc until they are in serious shape. That's a given. But in the long term, this is going to save money now spent treating preventable complications (and the complications of those complications), disability benefits, lost productivity, etc.

"Who will oversee the industry?"

http://docs.house.gov/edlabor/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf (starting on page 41)

Euthanasia: a cost saving idea from Libruls who want to federally fund abortions.

Terrific.

 

[WillowTree]

so are you or are you not going to tell me how this plan will work? who will be denied, why, at what age, and how much it will cost, and who will write the laws and oversee the industry? just basic facts please.

See what I mean? No one can tell you who will be denied; and there is no magic number for what age everyone will be denied (whatever it is they are denying). I can tell you that decisions about treatment options are based upon risk vs benefit. Age IS a factor in some cases, because of co-morbidities that are more prevalent in older people which cause the risks to outweigh the benefits. But that doesn't preclude them from receiving treatment.

Cost estimates are out there if you want to look them up; personally, I do expect that costs will rise initially, then decline as so many more (not all, of course) have access to preventative/maintenance care. And frankly, though I can't speak for my colleagues or docs I work with, I'm tired of crisis management and putting out fires. Sure, there are still going to be people who won't go to a doc until they are in serious shape. That's a given. But in the long term, this is going to save money now spent treating preventable complications (and the complications of those complications), disability benefits, lost productivity, etc.

"Who will oversee the industry?"

http://docs.house.gov/edlabor/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf (starting on page 41)

so,, it is at we thought this will be at the expense of the senior citizen. Thanks for the verification.

 

[WillowTree]

start with half of mexico,, the democrats voted down the Heller amendment. now what will preclude us from treating 1/2 of mexico.. explain how that will work> please and thank you.

You do realize we treat illegals for free nowadays?

we treat them in the emergency room for emergencies, we do not give them cradle to grave health care. now try again. sounds to me like illegals will get treatment and seniors will not.

 

[Emma]

so are you or are you not going to tell me how this plan will work? who will be denied, why, at what age, and how much it will cost, and who will write the laws and oversee the industry? just basic facts please.

See what I mean? No one can tell you who will be denied; and there is no magic number for what age everyone will be denied (whatever it is they are denying). I can tell you that decisions about treatment options are based upon risk vs benefit. Age IS a factor in some cases, because of co-morbidities that are more prevalent in older people which cause the risks to outweigh the benefits. But that doesn't preclude them from receiving treatment.

Cost estimates are out there if you want to look them up; personally, I do expect that costs will rise initially, then decline as so many more (not all, of course) have access to preventative/maintenance care. And frankly, though I can't speak for my colleagues or docs I work with, I'm tired of crisis management and putting out fires. Sure, there are still going to be people who won't go to a doc until they are in serious shape. That's a given. But in the long term, this is going to save money now spent treating preventable complications (and the complications of those complications), disability benefits, lost productivity, etc.

"Who will oversee the industry?"

http://docs.house.gov/edlabor/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf (starting on page 41)

Euthanasia: a cost saving idea from Libruls who want to federally fund abortions.

Terrific.

^ case in point. Your side doesn't wish to discuss the merit of what's actually being proposed, you just want to make shit up.

"good guy" my ass.

 

[Emma]

so are you or are you not going to tell me how this plan will work? who will be denied, why, at what age, and how much it will cost, and who will write the laws and oversee the industry? just basic facts please.

See what I mean? No one can tell you who will be denied; and there is no magic number for what age everyone will be denied (whatever it is they are denying). I can tell you that decisions about treatment options are based upon risk vs benefit. Age IS a factor in some cases, because of co-morbidities that are more prevalent in older people which cause the risks to outweigh the benefits. But that doesn't preclude them from receiving treatment.

Cost estimates are out there if you want to look them up; personally, I do expect that costs will rise initially, then decline as so many more (not all, of course) have access to preventative/maintenance care. And frankly, though I can't speak for my colleagues or docs I work with, I'm tired of crisis management and putting out fires. Sure, there are still going to be people who won't go to a doc until they are in serious shape. That's a given. But in the long term, this is going to save money now spent treating preventable complications (and the complications of those complications), disability benefits, lost productivity, etc.

"Who will oversee the industry?"

http://docs.house.gov/edlabor/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf (starting on page 41)

so,, it is at we thought this will be at the expense of the senior citizen. Thanks for the verification.

^ case in point again. Where the fuck do you get that?

 

[Emma]

start with half of mexico,, the democrats voted down the Heller amendment. now what will preclude us from treating 1/2 of mexico.. explain how that will work> please and thank you.

You do realize we treat illegals for free nowadays?

we treat them in the emergency room for emergencies, we do not give them cradle to grave health care. now try again. sounds to me like illegals will get treatment and seniors will not.

Well, I haven't gotten enough sleep to deal with your ignorance and bullshit talking points. If and when you decide to stop making shit up and discuss what is actually IN the proposed bill, let me know.

 

[WillowTree]

what is YOUR base in fact for these claims and dont say fox news or any right wing pundunt site...where is FACTUAL proof of your claims?

I have already told you.. the congress is planning on cutting 500 billion dollars from medicare,, so,, who gets denied???? the congress voted down the Heller amendment so what precludes us from paying for 1/2 of Mexico? Tell me how it's gonna work?

Can you please provide links. Thanks.

I've now been up almost 24 hours. I need to get a nap and will check back. Have a good day.

why don't we just play it this way,, I ask you for specifics,, you tell me to go look it up.. you ask me for links,, I tell you to find your own links.. that's fair.

 

[Emma]

sounds to me like illegals will get treatment

http://docs.house.gov/edlabor/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf

Section 246 (page 143).

So again. Let me know when you decide to stop making shit up.