The New Communism: Healthcare

[PoliticalChic]

PC asks:



The same kind of thinking that refuses to insure pre-existing conditions to save the insurance companies medical costs, actually.

This rationing scare tactic isn't going to work because far too many Amnerican already know that their HC is rationed, already.

Out of the mouth of babes

Should life insurance companies offer life insurance to those on their deathbed?

Of course not. They should RATION health care. Just as the government already does and will continue to do.

You seem to be proving my case that HC is now and will continue to be rationed regardless of whether it is provided by a for profit insurance scheme or a government insurance scheme, PC.

I don't actually see where your opinion and mine are at odds when it comes to this issue.

Let not the perfect be the enemy of the good.

 

[PoliticalChic]

perhaps only in that the rich can go to the HC well on their own, the poor stand in the pecking order line behind them.....?

So you're claiming that 91% of Americans are 'rich'?

Wow, even better than I thought!

"Among insured Americans, 82 percent rate their health coverage positively. Among insured people who've experienced a serious or chronic illness or injury in their family in the last year, an enormous 91 percent are satisfied with their care, and 86 percent are satisfied with their coverage. "
ABCNEWS.com : U.S. Health Care Concerns Increase

 

[Barb]

Let's check.

If an American and a Canadian both discovered that they had cancer, would the odds be better that the American would rush off to Canada, or that the Canadian would hurry to America.

So much for your argument.

My mother tried that argument (not specific to cancer, why narrow it down to that?). Funny thing, later in the same conversation she admitted that she (like many Americans living on fixed incomes) buy their prescription drugs from Canada

I narrowed it down to cancer because there is ample evidence that nowhere else on earth has the survival rate for cancers that the United States has.

I found mixed results when I tried to find same for the various forms of heart disease.

As you have used and anecdotal, let me throw in one:
"Holmes (see video below) was diagnosed with brain cancer, with her vision deteriorating rapidly, but was placed on the treatment waiting lists common to health care in socialist countries. While the average wait time for many procedures can run 18 months or more, Holmes actually made out pretty good by only having to wait 6 months for surgery for her brain tumor.

Rather than wait like a good little subject, she came to the States and got the health care she needed within three weeks. You know, the United States health care system liberals claim is so broken it must be replaced with a government system…you know, kinda like the one in Canada."
http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/06/where-can-americans-go-for-treatment-under-govt-health-care/

Has mom seen this:
"If you think all drugs from Canada are cheaper than U.S. drugs, think again. In the United States, generic drugs--roughly half of all prescriptions--are often cheaper than both Canadian brand-name drugs and Canadian generic drugs, according to a study by the Food and Drug Administration."

Or this:
"While some foreign drug manufacturers submit their products to FDA for approval, the imported drugs arriving through the mail, through private express couriers, or by passengers arriving at ports of entry are often unapproved drugs that may not be subject to any reliable regulatory oversight. FDA cannot assure the safety of drugs purchased from such sources."
Study: U.S. Generic Drugs Cost Less Than Canadian Drugs

Also, there was in interesting article in City Journal on the subject:
"He tells me stories of other people whom his British Columbia–based company, Timely Medical Alternatives, has helped—people like the elderly woman who needed vascular surgery for a major artery in her abdomen and was promised prompt care by one of the most senior bureaucrats in the government, who never called back. “Her doctor told her she’s going to die,” Baker remembers. So Timely got her surgery in a couple of days, in Washington State. Then there was the eight-year-old badly in need of a procedure to help correct her deafness. After watching her surgery get bumped three times, her parents called Timely.
The Ugly Truth About Canadian Health Care by David Gratzer, City Journal Summer 2007

Very, very best wishes to you mom.

I'll pass that on to mom, thanks. She's pretty sharp, though, and where there's a penny to be pinched, she doesn't miss it. Aren't most drugs sold out of the states produced by in US drug companies? I did see Gratzer in a You Tube vid, committee hearings. He didn't hold up very well.

The thing is, we might have some better medicine for those who can pay, but those that can't are left out of delivery. Those are a lot of people. An ounce of prevention is a conservative idea, is it not? Regular check ups could nip so much in the bud that ends up at the emergency room door as catastrophic, life threatening, or code blue. I hooked up a four lead on a man who left a wife and two young children who should have been on antibiotics and took over the counter cold meds for three weeks instead. Thanksgiving morning in America, and the first time I saw a person breathe their last. In the same hospital I saw a ward of the state kept alive for far longer than she would have liked given the quality of the life led, so contracted that it caused tears every time it was time to turn, stuck like a pin cushion, hooked up to one tube after another, until the lawyers finally went to the state to plead for palliative care on the grounds of simple humanity.

I've seen it overdone, underdone, undiagnosed, and pain written off as "drug seeking" (you should have been there, that was three months of pure hell, ovarian cancer, in a US nursing home), and misdiagnosed (tooth pain was an addiction to Tylenol, and she died from a preventable heart attack, again in a US nursing home). All this had one thing at the root of the problem, and that root was money, in either not being able to pay, being too tied to the system (insurance will approve anything for a ward of the state, and medicine will go to any heroic length to keep those bodies alive when it is far past time to give the kindness of palliative measures only), and being in a long term nursing facility in a country that thinks that health care can be run and regulated by the market.

The system is broken, and it needs to be fixed.

 

[PoliticalChic]

My mother tried that argument (not specific to cancer, why narrow it down to that?). Funny thing, later in the same conversation she admitted that she (like many Americans living on fixed incomes) buy their prescription drugs from Canada

I narrowed it down to cancer because there is ample evidence that nowhere else on earth has the survival rate for cancers that the United States has.

I found mixed results when I tried to find same for the various forms of heart disease.

As you have used and anecdotal, let me throw in one:
"Holmes (see video below) was diagnosed with brain cancer, with her vision deteriorating rapidly, but was placed on the treatment waiting lists common to health care in socialist countries. While the average wait time for many procedures can run 18 months or more, Holmes actually made out pretty good by only having to wait 6 months for surgery for her brain tumor.

Rather than wait like a good little subject, she came to the States and got the health care she needed within three weeks. You know, the United States health care system liberals claim is so broken it must be replaced with a government system…you know, kinda like the one in Canada."
http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/06/where-can-americans-go-for-treatment-under-govt-health-care/

Has mom seen this:
"If you think all drugs from Canada are cheaper than U.S. drugs, think again. In the United States, generic drugs--roughly half of all prescriptions--are often cheaper than both Canadian brand-name drugs and Canadian generic drugs, according to a study by the Food and Drug Administration."

Or this:
"While some foreign drug manufacturers submit their products to FDA for approval, the imported drugs arriving through the mail, through private express couriers, or by passengers arriving at ports of entry are often unapproved drugs that may not be subject to any reliable regulatory oversight. FDA cannot assure the safety of drugs purchased from such sources."
Study: U.S. Generic Drugs Cost Less Than Canadian Drugs

Also, there was in interesting article in City Journal on the subject:
"He tells me stories of other people whom his British Columbia–based company, Timely Medical Alternatives, has helped—people like the elderly woman who needed vascular surgery for a major artery in her abdomen and was promised prompt care by one of the most senior bureaucrats in the government, who never called back. “Her doctor told her she’s going to die,” Baker remembers. So Timely got her surgery in a couple of days, in Washington State. Then there was the eight-year-old badly in need of a procedure to help correct her deafness. After watching her surgery get bumped three times, her parents called Timely.
The Ugly Truth About Canadian Health Care by David Gratzer, City Journal Summer 2007

Very, very best wishes to you mom.

I'll pass that on to mom, thanks. She's pretty sharp, though, and where there's a penny to be pinched, she doesn't miss it. Aren't most drugs sold out of the states produced by in US drug companies? I did see Gratzer in a You Tube vid, committee hearings. He didn't hold up very well.

The thing is, we might have some better medicine for those who can pay, but those that can't are left out of delivery. Those are a lot of people. An ounce of prevention is a conservative idea, is it not? Regular check ups could nip so much in the bud that ends up at the emergency room door as catastrophic, life threatening, or code blue. I hooked up a four lead on a man who left a wife and two young children who should have been on antibiotics and took over the counter cold meds for three weeks instead. Thanksgiving morning in America, and the first time I saw a person breathe their last. In the same hospital I saw a ward of the state kept alive for far longer than she would have liked given the quality of the life led, so contracted that it caused tears every time it was time to turn, stuck like a pin cushion, hooked up to one tube after another, until the lawyers finally went to the state to plead for palliative care on the grounds of simple humanity.

I've seen it overdone, underdone, undiagnosed, and pain written off as "drug seeking" (you should have been there, that was three months of pure hell, ovarian cancer, in a US nursing home), and misdiagnosed (tooth pain was an addiction to Tylenol, and she died from a preventable heart attack, again in a US nursing home). All this had one thing at the root of the problem, and that root was money, in either not being able to pay, being too tied to the system (insurance will approve anything for a ward of the state, and medicine will go to any heroic length to keep those bodies alive when it is far past time to give the kindness of palliative measures only), and being in a long term nursing facility in a country that thinks that health care can be run and regulated by the market.

The system is broken, and it needs to be fixed.

Good post.

"...and where there's a penny to be pinched, she doesn't miss it." I've got no beef with that.

I think the place that we differ is whether the system is broken, or there are merely some cracks that should be addressed.

This, from ABC, not very conservative, but I have found the site to be, pretty often, even-handed:

Among insured Americans, 82 percent rate their health coverage positively. Among insured people who've experienced a serious or chronic illness or injury in their family in the last year, an enormous 91 percent are satisfied with their care, and 86 percent are satisfied with their coverage.
ABCNEWS.com : U.S. Health Care Concerns Increase

Unless you think that Americans don't know what's good for them, you must give some credence, expecially to the 91% part.

 

[Barb]

I narrowed it down to cancer because there is ample evidence that nowhere else on earth has the survival rate for cancers that the United States has.

I found mixed results when I tried to find same for the various forms of heart disease.

As you have used and anecdotal, let me throw in one:
"Holmes (see video below) was diagnosed with brain cancer, with her vision deteriorating rapidly, but was placed on the treatment waiting lists common to health care in socialist countries. While the average wait time for many procedures can run 18 months or more, Holmes actually made out pretty good by only having to wait 6 months for surgery for her brain tumor.

Rather than wait like a good little subject, she came to the States and got the health care she needed within three weeks. You know, the United States health care system liberals claim is so broken it must be replaced with a government system…you know, kinda like the one in Canada."
http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/06/where-can-americans-go-for-treatment-under-govt-health-care/

Has mom seen this:
"If you think all drugs from Canada are cheaper than U.S. drugs, think again. In the United States, generic drugs--roughly half of all prescriptions--are often cheaper than both Canadian brand-name drugs and Canadian generic drugs, according to a study by the Food and Drug Administration."

Or this:
"While some foreign drug manufacturers submit their products to FDA for approval, the imported drugs arriving through the mail, through private express couriers, or by passengers arriving at ports of entry are often unapproved drugs that may not be subject to any reliable regulatory oversight. FDA cannot assure the safety of drugs purchased from such sources."
Study: U.S. Generic Drugs Cost Less Than Canadian Drugs

Also, there was in interesting article in City Journal on the subject:
"He tells me stories of other people whom his British Columbia–based company, Timely Medical Alternatives, has helped—people like the elderly woman who needed vascular surgery for a major artery in her abdomen and was promised prompt care by one of the most senior bureaucrats in the government, who never called back. “Her doctor told her she’s going to die,” Baker remembers. So Timely got her surgery in a couple of days, in Washington State. Then there was the eight-year-old badly in need of a procedure to help correct her deafness. After watching her surgery get bumped three times, her parents called Timely.
The Ugly Truth About Canadian Health Care by David Gratzer, City Journal Summer 2007

Very, very best wishes to you mom.

I'll pass that on to mom, thanks. She's pretty sharp, though, and where there's a penny to be pinched, she doesn't miss it. Aren't most drugs sold out of the states produced by in US drug companies? I did see Gratzer in a You Tube vid, committee hearings. He didn't hold up very well.

The thing is, we might have some better medicine for those who can pay, but those that can't are left out of delivery. Those are a lot of people. An ounce of prevention is a conservative idea, is it not? Regular check ups could nip so much in the bud that ends up at the emergency room door as catastrophic, life threatening, or code blue. I hooked up a four lead on a man who left a wife and two young children who should have been on antibiotics and took over the counter cold meds for three weeks instead. Thanksgiving morning in America, and the first time I saw a person breathe their last. In the same hospital I saw a ward of the state kept alive for far longer than she would have liked given the quality of the life led, so contracted that it caused tears every time it was time to turn, stuck like a pin cushion, hooked up to one tube after another, until the lawyers finally went to the state to plead for palliative care on the grounds of simple humanity.

I've seen it overdone, underdone, undiagnosed, and pain written off as "drug seeking" (you should have been there, that was three months of pure hell, ovarian cancer, in a US nursing home), and misdiagnosed (tooth pain was an addiction to Tylenol, and she died from a preventable heart attack, again in a US nursing home). All this had one thing at the root of the problem, and that root was money, in either not being able to pay, being too tied to the system (insurance will approve anything for a ward of the state, and medicine will go to any heroic length to keep those bodies alive when it is far past time to give the kindness of palliative measures only), and being in a long term nursing facility in a country that thinks that health care can be run and regulated by the market.

The system is broken, and it needs to be fixed.

Good post.

"...and where there's a penny to be pinched, she doesn't miss it." I've got no beef with that.

I think the place that we differ is whether the system is broken, or there are merely some cracks that should be addressed.

This, from ABC, not very conservative, but I have found the site to be, pretty often, even-handed:

Among insured Americans, 82 percent rate their health coverage positively. Among insured people who've experienced a serious or chronic illness or injury in their family in the last year, an enormous 91 percent are satisfied with their care, and 86 percent are satisfied with their coverage.
ABCNEWS.com : U.S. Health Care Concerns Increase

Unless you think that Americans don't know what's good for them, you must give some credence, expecially to the 91% part.

We'll end up agreeing to disagree, I think, but thank you for the friendly conversation.

The poll quoting happy customers cited those insured. I must be part of the 9%, as I have insurance, have already paid out nearly 3 thousand in payments this year (my employer picks up part), and I still save doctor visits to cover my kids (the co-pays are twenty for regular doc, 80/20 for dental [I don't even want to discuss vision]) because there are other bills that must be paid, and groceries.

Then there are the people, many who work very hard, very long at some of the crappiest and most labor intensive jobs there are, aren't covered, and can't afford to pay on their own. They pay taxes too, every time the rent is paid, the car is insured and registered, and a thousand other ways. I remember my wages being over by 10 dollars a month to qualify for child health plus, and there was no sliding scale. New graduates today are finding it hard to get jobs that provide coverage, businesses are cutting costs, and it isn't their fault prices have risen so sharply.

There is support for changing this. From the link you provided:

"[...] In an extensive ABCNEWS/Washington Post poll, Americans by a 2-1 margin, 62-32 percent, prefer a universal health insurance program over the current employer-based system. That support, however, is conditional: It falls to fewer than four in 10 if it means a limited choice of doctors, or waiting lists for non-emergency treatments. [...]"

Well, hell, they aren't asking for much, are they?

"[...] Support for change is based largely on unease with the current system's costs. Seventy-eight percent are dissatisfied with the cost of the nation's health care system, including 54 percent "very" dissatisfied.

Indeed, most Americans, or 54 percent, are now dissatisfied with the overall quality of health care in the United States — the first majority in three polls since 1993, and up 10 points since 2000.[...]"

I think this has more to do with rising costs and facilities trying to cope with changing circumstances and tighter budgets than dissatisfaction with the care the patient receives (if they can afford care). I love my doctor, but hospitals are closing, and care is micromanaged by insurance agencies in the best of practices.

"[...] Yet apprehension about the system is counterbalanced by broad satisfaction among insured Americans with their own current quality of care, coverage and costs — a situation that tends to encourage a cautious approach to change.[...]"

I have an issue where the piece goes on to say this works for "most people," but at the end of the day, with democrat Senators also visited by and beholden to powerful insurance lobbyists, I think the finished product might well look more like patch and plaster than an overhaul. And this is where I disagree with my party. I think we should have single payer. I truly believe that some things should not be run at a profit (not that cost is not an issue, but there are better ways to control them than adding to them), and that insurance companies are unnecessary blood-sucking leeches adding a layer of cost to the system and adding nothing of value in return.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I'll pass that on to mom, thanks. She's pretty sharp, though, and where there's a penny to be pinched, she doesn't miss it. Aren't most drugs sold out of the states produced by in US drug companies? I did see Gratzer in a You Tube vid, committee hearings. He didn't hold up very well.

The thing is, we might have some better medicine for those who can pay, but those that can't are left out of delivery. Those are a lot of people. An ounce of prevention is a conservative idea, is it not? Regular check ups could nip so much in the bud that ends up at the emergency room door as catastrophic, life threatening, or code blue. I hooked up a four lead on a man who left a wife and two young children who should have been on antibiotics and took over the counter cold meds for three weeks instead. Thanksgiving morning in America, and the first time I saw a person breathe their last. In the same hospital I saw a ward of the state kept alive for far longer than she would have liked given the quality of the life led, so contracted that it caused tears every time it was time to turn, stuck like a pin cushion, hooked up to one tube after another, until the lawyers finally went to the state to plead for palliative care on the grounds of simple humanity.

I've seen it overdone, underdone, undiagnosed, and pain written off as "drug seeking" (you should have been there, that was three months of pure hell, ovarian cancer, in a US nursing home), and misdiagnosed (tooth pain was an addiction to Tylenol, and she died from a preventable heart attack, again in a US nursing home). All this had one thing at the root of the problem, and that root was money, in either not being able to pay, being too tied to the system (insurance will approve anything for a ward of the state, and medicine will go to any heroic length to keep those bodies alive when it is far past time to give the kindness of palliative measures only), and being in a long term nursing facility in a country that thinks that health care can be run and regulated by the market.

The system is broken, and it needs to be fixed.

Good post.

"...and where there's a penny to be pinched, she doesn't miss it." I've got no beef with that.

I think the place that we differ is whether the system is broken, or there are merely some cracks that should be addressed.

This, from ABC, not very conservative, but I have found the site to be, pretty often, even-handed:

Among insured Americans, 82 percent rate their health coverage positively. Among insured people who've experienced a serious or chronic illness or injury in their family in the last year, an enormous 91 percent are satisfied with their care, and 86 percent are satisfied with their coverage.
ABCNEWS.com : U.S. Health Care Concerns Increase

Unless you think that Americans don't know what's good for them, you must give some credence, expecially to the 91% part.

We'll end up agreeing to disagree, I think, but thank you for the friendly conversation.

The poll quoting happy customers cited those insured. I must be part of the 9%, as I have insurance, have already paid out nearly 3 thousand in payments this year (my employer picks up part), and I still save doctor visits to cover my kids (the co-pays are twenty for regular doc, 80/20 for dental [I don't even want to discuss vision]) because there are other bills that must be paid, and groceries.

Then there are the people, many who work very hard, very long at some of the crappiest and most labor intensive jobs there are, aren't covered, and can't afford to pay on their own. They pay taxes too, every time the rent is paid, the car is insured and registered, and a thousand other ways. I remember my wages being over by 10 dollars a month to qualify for child health plus, and there was no sliding scale. New graduates today are finding it hard to get jobs that provide coverage, businesses are cutting costs, and it isn't their fault prices have risen so sharply.

There is support for changing this. From the link you provided:

"[...] In an extensive ABCNEWS/Washington Post poll, Americans by a 2-1 margin, 62-32 percent, prefer a universal health insurance program over the current employer-based system. That support, however, is conditional: It falls to fewer than four in 10 if it means a limited choice of doctors, or waiting lists for non-emergency treatments. [...]"

Well, hell, they aren't asking for much, are they?

"[...] Support for change is based largely on unease with the current system's costs. Seventy-eight percent are dissatisfied with the cost of the nation's health care system, including 54 percent "very" dissatisfied.

Indeed, most Americans, or 54 percent, are now dissatisfied with the overall quality of health care in the United States — the first majority in three polls since 1993, and up 10 points since 2000.[...]"

I think this has more to do with rising costs and facilities trying to cope with changing circumstances and tighter budgets than dissatisfaction with the care the patient receives (if they can afford care). I love my doctor, but hospitals are closing, and care is micromanaged by insurance agencies in the best of practices.

"[...] Yet apprehension about the system is counterbalanced by broad satisfaction among insured Americans with their own current quality of care, coverage and costs — a situation that tends to encourage a cautious approach to change.[...]"

I have an issue where the piece goes on to say this works for "most people," but at the end of the day, with democrat Senators also visited by and beholden to powerful insurance lobbyists, I think the finished product might well look more like patch and plaster than an overhaul. And this is where I disagree with my party. I think we should have single payer. I truly believe that some things should not be run at a profit (not that cost is not an issue, but there are better ways to control them than adding to them), and that insurance companies are unnecessary blood-sucking leeches adding a layer of cost to the system and adding nothing of value in return.

I agree, this is the way debate should be, on both sides.

I think there is an assuption that a not-for-profit government system would be better, but I question where other such experiments have proven same.

Europe, Massachusetts, Tennessee, all wind up with long waits, rationing and huge costs.

Have you seen this:
"The sub-thesis of my diary is that the progressive agenda will be advanced the farthest when we include a couple of centrist tidbits in the legislation. Its not only politically smart, but as is the case here, the right thing to do. And that no country in the world that has universal care is without major cost containment including tort reform and some sort of rationing."
Daily Kos: Umm, medical tort reform

I don't recall which threat, but I made the case that any cost savings will be on the backs of our elderly.

Be well.

 

[Barb]

Thanks
I will look at it later, but for today its time for bed. The graveyard shift is coming. Good night.

 

[sparky]

New Rule: Not Everything in America Has to Make a Profit
digg Huffpost - stumble reddit del.ico.us ShareThis
Read More: Bill Frist, Bill Maher, Health Care, Health Care Reform, Obama Health Care, Walter Cronkite, Comedy News



Show your support.
Digg this article.
Get Comedy Alerts

never spam
Share Print CommentsHow about this for a New Rule: Not everything in America has to make a profit. It used to be that there were some services and institutions so vital to our nation that they were exempt from market pressures. Some things we just didn't do for money. The United States always defined capitalism, but it didn't used to define us. But now it's becoming all that we are.

Did you know, for example, that there was a time when being called a "war profiteer" was a bad thing? But now our war zones are dominated by private contractors and mercenaries who work for corporations. There are more private contractors in Iraq than American troops, and we pay them generous salaries to do jobs the troops used to do for themselves *-- like laundry. War is not supposed to turn a profit, but our wars have become boondoggles for weapons manufacturers and connected civilian contractors.

Prisons used to be a non-profit business, too. And for good reason --* who the hell wants to own a prison? By definition you're going to have trouble with the tenants. But now prisons are big business. A company called the Corrections Corporation of America is on the New York Stock Exchange, which is convenient since that's where all the real crime is happening anyway. The CCA and similar corporations actually lobby Congress for stiffer sentencing laws so they can lock more people up and make more money. That's why America has the world;s largest prison population *-- because actually rehabilitating people would have a negative impact on the bottom line.

Television news is another area that used to be roped off from the profit motive. When Walter Cronkite died last week, it was odd to see news anchor after news anchor talking about how much better the news coverage was back in Cronkite's day. I thought, "Gee, if only you were in a position to do something about it."

But maybe they aren't. Because unlike in Cronkite's day, today's news has to make a profit like all the other divisions in a media conglomerate. That's why it wasn't surprising to see the CBS Evening News broadcast live from the Staples Center for two nights this month, just in case Michael Jackson came back to life and sold Iran nuclear weapons. In Uncle Walter's time, the news division was a loss leader. Making money was the job of The Beverly Hillbillies. And now that we have reporters moving to Alaska to hang out with the Palin family, the news is The Beverly Hillbillies.

And finally, there's health care. It wasn't that long ago that when a kid broke his leg playing stickball, his parents took him to the local Catholic hospital, the nun put a thermometer in his mouth, the doctor slapped some plaster on his ankle and you were done. The bill was $1.50, plus you got to keep the thermometer.

But like everything else that's good and noble in life, some Wall Street wizard decided that hospitals could be big business, so now they're run by some bean counters in a corporate plaza in Charlotte. In the U.S. today, three giant for-profit conglomerates own close to 600 hospitals and other health care facilities. They're not hospitals anymore; they're Jiffy Lubes with bedpans. America's largest hospital chain, HCA, was founded by the family of Bill Frist, who perfectly represents the Republican attitude toward health care: it's not a right, it's a racket. The more people who get sick and need medicine, the higher their profit margins. Which is why they're always pushing the Jell-O.

Because medicine is now for-profit we have things like "recision," where insurance companies hire people to figure out ways to deny you coverage when you get sick, even though you've been paying into your plan for years.

When did the profit motive become the only reason to do anything? When did that become the new patriotism? Ask not what you could do for your country, ask what's in it for Blue Cross/Blue Shield.

If conservatives get to call universal health care "socialized medicine," I get to call private health care "soulless vampires making money off human pain." The problem with President Obama's health care plan isn't socialism, it's capitalism.

And if medicine is for profit, and war, and the news, and the penal system, my question is: what's wrong with firemen? Why don't they charge? They must be commies. Oh my God! That explains the red trucks!

 

[Barb]

Good post.

"...and where there's a penny to be pinched, she doesn't miss it." I've got no beef with that.

I think the place that we differ is whether the system is broken, or there are merely some cracks that should be addressed.

This, from ABC, not very conservative, but I have found the site to be, pretty often, even-handed:

Among insured Americans, 82 percent rate their health coverage positively. Among insured people who've experienced a serious or chronic illness or injury in their family in the last year, an enormous 91 percent are satisfied with their care, and 86 percent are satisfied with their coverage.
ABCNEWS.com : U.S. Health Care Concerns Increase

Unless you think that Americans don't know what's good for them, you must give some credence, expecially to the 91% part.

We'll end up agreeing to disagree, I think, but thank you for the friendly conversation.

The poll quoting happy customers cited those insured. I must be part of the 9%, as I have insurance, have already paid out nearly 3 thousand in payments this year (my employer picks up part), and I still save doctor visits to cover my kids (the co-pays are twenty for regular doc, 80/20 for dental [I don't even want to discuss vision]) because there are other bills that must be paid, and groceries.

Then there are the people, many who work very hard, very long at some of the crappiest and most labor intensive jobs there are, aren't covered, and can't afford to pay on their own. They pay taxes too, every time the rent is paid, the car is insured and registered, and a thousand other ways. I remember my wages being over by 10 dollars a month to qualify for child health plus, and there was no sliding scale. New graduates today are finding it hard to get jobs that provide coverage, businesses are cutting costs, and it isn't their fault prices have risen so sharply.

There is support for changing this. From the link you provided:

"[...] In an extensive ABCNEWS/Washington Post poll, Americans by a 2-1 margin, 62-32 percent, prefer a universal health insurance program over the current employer-based system. That support, however, is conditional: It falls to fewer than four in 10 if it means a limited choice of doctors, or waiting lists for non-emergency treatments. [...]"

Well, hell, they aren't asking for much, are they?

"[...] Support for change is based largely on unease with the current system's costs. Seventy-eight percent are dissatisfied with the cost of the nation's health care system, including 54 percent "very" dissatisfied.

Indeed, most Americans, or 54 percent, are now dissatisfied with the overall quality of health care in the United States — the first majority in three polls since 1993, and up 10 points since 2000.[...]"

I think this has more to do with rising costs and facilities trying to cope with changing circumstances and tighter budgets than dissatisfaction with the care the patient receives (if they can afford care). I love my doctor, but hospitals are closing, and care is micromanaged by insurance agencies in the best of practices.

"[...] Yet apprehension about the system is counterbalanced by broad satisfaction among insured Americans with their own current quality of care, coverage and costs — a situation that tends to encourage a cautious approach to change.[...]"

I have an issue where the piece goes on to say this works for "most people," but at the end of the day, with democrat Senators also visited by and beholden to powerful insurance lobbyists, I think the finished product might well look more like patch and plaster than an overhaul. And this is where I disagree with my party. I think we should have single payer. I truly believe that some things should not be run at a profit (not that cost is not an issue, but there are better ways to control them than adding to them), and that insurance companies are unnecessary blood-sucking leeches adding a layer of cost to the system and adding nothing of value in return.

I agree, this is the way debate should be, on both sides.

I think there is an assuption that a not-for-profit government system would be better, but I question where other such experiments have proven same.

Europe, Massachusetts, Tennessee, all wind up with long waits, rationing and huge costs.

Have you seen this:
"The sub-thesis of my diary is that the progressive agenda will be advanced the farthest when we include a couple of centrist tidbits in the legislation. Its not only politically smart, but as is the case here, the right thing to do. And that no country in the world that has universal care is without major cost containment including tort reform and some sort of rationing."
Daily Kos: Umm, medical tort reform

I don't recall which threat, but I made the case that any cost savings will be on the backs of our elderly.

Be well.

Hello again. I would agree to some sort of tort reform, as long as it didn't encourage sloppy regulation of medicine. If a doctor is incompetent due to age, drug abuse, etc...he or she should lose their license, and their colleagues should not cover for them. If someone is disabled or dies because their doctor did something wrong (due to negligence or incompetence), then they and their family should receive just compensation for the loss of their abilities, the loss of the income they provide, and to provide the care they will need. I do agree that it should not make the family instant billionaires.

Our elderly, some of them, are already having a hard row to hoe. I see too many in drafty doorways, sitting on their wheeled walkers, greeting WalMart shoppers, or bagging / checking groceries. The biggest complaint I hear is that the cost of their scripts are too much to handle on a fixed income and still pay the bills. I think that with tort reform, the US should demand the same pricing for meds sold in the US as the same companies sell them for elsewhere.

 

[PoliticalChic]

We'll end up agreeing to disagree, I think, but thank you for the friendly conversation.

The poll quoting happy customers cited those insured. I must be part of the 9%, as I have insurance, have already paid out nearly 3 thousand in payments this year (my employer picks up part), and I still save doctor visits to cover my kids (the co-pays are twenty for regular doc, 80/20 for dental [I don't even want to discuss vision]) because there are other bills that must be paid, and groceries.

Then there are the people, many who work very hard, very long at some of the crappiest and most labor intensive jobs there are, aren't covered, and can't afford to pay on their own. They pay taxes too, every time the rent is paid, the car is insured and registered, and a thousand other ways. I remember my wages being over by 10 dollars a month to qualify for child health plus, and there was no sliding scale. New graduates today are finding it hard to get jobs that provide coverage, businesses are cutting costs, and it isn't their fault prices have risen so sharply.

There is support for changing this. From the link you provided:

"[...] In an extensive ABCNEWS/Washington Post poll, Americans by a 2-1 margin, 62-32 percent, prefer a universal health insurance program over the current employer-based system. That support, however, is conditional: It falls to fewer than four in 10 if it means a limited choice of doctors, or waiting lists for non-emergency treatments. [...]"

Well, hell, they aren't asking for much, are they?

"[...] Support for change is based largely on unease with the current system's costs. Seventy-eight percent are dissatisfied with the cost of the nation's health care system, including 54 percent "very" dissatisfied.

Indeed, most Americans, or 54 percent, are now dissatisfied with the overall quality of health care in the United States — the first majority in three polls since 1993, and up 10 points since 2000.[...]"

I think this has more to do with rising costs and facilities trying to cope with changing circumstances and tighter budgets than dissatisfaction with the care the patient receives (if they can afford care). I love my doctor, but hospitals are closing, and care is micromanaged by insurance agencies in the best of practices.

"[...] Yet apprehension about the system is counterbalanced by broad satisfaction among insured Americans with their own current quality of care, coverage and costs — a situation that tends to encourage a cautious approach to change.[...]"

I have an issue where the piece goes on to say this works for "most people," but at the end of the day, with democrat Senators also visited by and beholden to powerful insurance lobbyists, I think the finished product might well look more like patch and plaster than an overhaul. And this is where I disagree with my party. I think we should have single payer. I truly believe that some things should not be run at a profit (not that cost is not an issue, but there are better ways to control them than adding to them), and that insurance companies are unnecessary blood-sucking leeches adding a layer of cost to the system and adding nothing of value in return.

I agree, this is the way debate should be, on both sides.

I think there is an assuption that a not-for-profit government system would be better, but I question where other such experiments have proven same.

Europe, Massachusetts, Tennessee, all wind up with long waits, rationing and huge costs.

Have you seen this:
"The sub-thesis of my diary is that the progressive agenda will be advanced the farthest when we include a couple of centrist tidbits in the legislation. Its not only politically smart, but as is the case here, the right thing to do. And that no country in the world that has universal care is without major cost containment including tort reform and some sort of rationing."
Daily Kos: Umm, medical tort reform

I don't recall which threat, but I made the case that any cost savings will be on the backs of our elderly.

Be well.

Hello again. I would agree to some sort of tort reform, as long as it didn't encourage sloppy regulation of medicine. If a doctor is incompetent due to age, drug abuse, etc...he or she should lose their license, and their colleagues should not cover for them. If someone is disabled or dies because their doctor did something wrong (due to negligence or incompetence), then they and their family should receive just compensation for the loss of their abilities, the loss of the income they provide, and to provide the care they will need. I do agree that it should not make the family instant billionaires.

Our elderly, some of them, are already having a hard row to hoe. I see too many in drafty doorways, sitting on their wheeled walkers, greeting WalMart shoppers, or bagging / checking groceries. The biggest complaint I hear is that the cost of their scripts are too much to handle on a fixed income and still pay the bills. I think that with tort reform, the US should demand the same pricing for meds sold in the US as the same companies sell them for elsewhere.

Hi- back from the graveyard shift?

I told hubby about it , and he gave me a review of the horrors of when he used to work as a stevedore, midnight to 9am, and the 'shape-up' to get work.

He loves telling that story.

As for tort reform, as a Conservative, I believe that data informs policy, so I tried very hard to get these figures:

"Despite the push for tort reform, the facts don't warrant what Public Citizen, a nonpartisan research group, calls the "politically charged hysteria surrounding medical malpractice litigation.''

The number of U.S. malpractice payments in 2008 was the lowest since creation of the federal National Practitioner Data Bank, which has tracked payments since 1990. And the average payment — about $326,000 — was the smallest in a decade.

While malpractice litigation accounts for only about 0.6 percent of U.S. health care costs, the fear of being sued causes U.S. doctors to order more tests than their Canadian counterparts. So-called defensive medicine increases health care costs by up to 9 percent, Medicare's administrator told Congress in 2005. "
Canada keeps malpractice cost in check - St. Petersburg Times

Now, compare those with these:
"Also, it’s worth noting that while these figures sound like a lot of money — and few would dispute the fact that health insurance company CEOs make healthy salaries — these numbers represent a very small fraction of total health care spending in the U.S. In 2007, national health care expenditures totaled $2.2 trillion. Health insurance profits of nearly $13 billion make up 0.6 percent of that. CEO compensation is a mere 0.005 percent of total spending."
FactCheck.org: Pushing for a Public Plan

So my conclusion is that the cost of malpractice suits is equal to the profit of the entire industry.

This may be significant of and by itself, but when we look at the costs of defensive medicine, it alone adds to the costs of healthcare by a factor 15!!!

But, as you know, tort reform is a political question as the trial lawyers are a major contributor to the Democratic party.
BTW, I heard on the news that the healthcare bill will increase lawsuits as it now allows employees to sue their employers if the employer provides healthcare.

As for our elderly, a very sore point with me is the attempt to cost-cut by reducing the help we give those who have worked their whole lives and helped build up this country.

In other posts I have documented the callous nature of the authors of the bills, who replace medical care with the nebulous 'social justice.'

I can't recall on which thread I discussed money saving strategies for healthcare, but there are a number that involve free market, and changes in the way insurance policies are written.

 

[mskafka]

a. One troubling provision of the House bill compels seniors to submit to a counseling session every five years (and more often if they become sick or go into a nursing home) about alternatives for end-of-life care (House bill, p. 425-430). The sessions cover highly sensitive matters such as whether to receive antibiotics and "the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration."



The use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration (feeding tube). Most people don't want these, and many people, of all ages, have signed one of these documents. As I said in a post yesterday-they are called advanced directives, living wills, Do-not-resuscitate/POST forms. Most physicians encourage people of a certain age to do this now. I'm not sure why this is so frightening.

 

[mskafka]

The proposed healthcare plan has far less government sponsorhip and involvement than most if not all universal healthcare plans in the world. Therefore, all those other nations are "communist" as well.

Clearly false. Note the following, which are only some of the " government sponsorhip [sic]and involvement" in healthcare.
a. One troubling provision of the House bill compels seniors to submit to a counseling session every five years (and more often if they become sick or go into a nursing home) about alternatives for end-of-life care (House bill, p. 425-430). The sessions cover highly sensitive matters such as whether to receive antibiotics and "the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration."

b. . THE FACTS: In House legislation, a commission appointed by the government would determine what is and isn't covered by insurance plans offered in a new purchasing pool, including a plan sponsored by the government. The bill also holds out the possibility that, over time, those standards could be imposed on all private insurance plans, not just the ones in the pool. …reform that plainly show the government making key decisions in health care.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/07/22/us/politics/AP-US-Obama-Fact-Check.html

c. , Dr. Blumenthal settled a debate on whether the system will control doctors' treatment decisions. In an article in the New England Journal of Medicine (April 9, 2009), Dr. Blumenthal stressed that the real importance of computers is to deliver "embedded clinical decision support," a euphemism for computers telling doctors what to do.
Defend Your Health Care

d. And when Medicare was enacted, Section 1801 of the original law specifically prohibited any bureaucratic interference with the practice of medicine. Today not one word of that protection still applies. The federal government owns the health-care industry lock, stock, and barrel.
The new program you support will eventually include all sorts of powers and privileges you can't even imagine right now.
The 7 Never-to-be-Forgotten Principles of Government

e. And as soon as anything changes in your contract -- such as a change in copays or deductibles, which many insurers change every year -- you'll have to move into a qualified plan instead (House bill, p. 16-17).
Defend Your Health Care

f. Also slipped into the emergency stimulus legislation was substantial funding for a Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research, comparative effectiveness research is generally code for limiting care based on the patient's age. Economists are familiar with the formula already in use in the U.K., where the cost of a treatment is divided by the number of years (called QALYS or quality-adjusted life years) the patient is likely to benefit. In the U.K., the formula leads to denying treatments for age-related diseases because older patients have a denominator problem -- fewer years to benefit than younger patients with other diseases. In 2006, older patients with macular degeneration, which causes blindness, were told that they had to go totally blind in one eye before they could get an expensive new drug to save the other eye. It took nearly two years to get that government edict reversed. Rep. Charles Boustany Jr., a Louisiana heart surgeon, warned to no avail that it would lead to "denying seniors and the disabled lifesaving care."
Defend Your Health Care

Medicare is very popular in Canada. There is a reason.[quote/]

The reason is that most do not face serious health crisises. Ask those who are aware that the United States has higher survival rates for all forms of cancer, ...cancer patients in the United States are most likely to be screened regularly, and once diagnosed, have the fastest access to treatment.
"... found that overall cancer survival rates are higher in the United States than in Canada."http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba596




Generally, I have found that those who have never comprehended the impact on human nature, and ambition, the salutary effects of hard work, effort and accomplishment, claim "You do not understand communism."
And those who have the ability to bury their heads in the sand, in terms of what history has shown about the effects of communism claim that exposing it is "a scare-tactic."


Wise.

I would estimate that 3/5 of the elderly people I pick up have some degree of POST form. Some of them want IV access, others don't. Some want artificial ventilation, others don't. Politicians are talking about end-of-life counseling as if it is something new that was created by Obama.

 

[mskafka]

b. . THE FACTS: In House legislation, a commission appointed by the government would determine what is and isn't covered by insurance plans offered in a new purchasing pool, including a plan sponsored by the government. The bill also holds out the possibility that, over time, those standards could be imposed on all private insurance plans, not just the ones in the pool. …reform that plainly show the government making key decisions in health care.

Yeah, I concur with you on this. I'm not crazy about it. This needs to be trashed.

 

[Toro]

The reason is that most do not face serious health crisises.

Of course Canada faces a serious health crisis. You think costs are only going up in the US?

The reference was to the disease, cancer.

Why not look at all diseases?

Why not look at average life spans? Canadians live longer than Americans on average by over two years.

List of countries by life expectancy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Of course, the medical system is only one of many reasons why this occurs, but hey, anyone can selectively pull out data.

 

[morpheus]

I think you might want to brush up on the differences between communism and democracy.
Communism, and the other totalist philosophies view the state as more important than the individual.
This premise is on view in the Communitarian authorship of the healthcare plan in Congress.
The answer to this question will reveal to you why the plan is, as I have stated, more attuned to the policies of the former Soviet Union, or the current Democratic Republic of North Korea, than the United States of America: What kind of thinking would encourage the demise of our senior citizens in order to save the state medical costs?

Unfortunately, you have succumbed to his kind of thinking if you view the policies of Canada and the UK as superior to those of the United States. These countries believe in equality of treatment, lowering same for all, rather than the best possible drugs and technology available. Available is the operative term...

...And, when you get around to reviewing Das Kapital, you should read as a companion piece
“The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression,” which is a compilation of research edited by French scholar Stephane Courtois, totals over 100 million victims of Communist murder during the 20th Century.

Are you comparing Britain and Canada to the Soviet Union and North Korea?

Political Chic,

After reading too many pages of your posts, the gross ignorance and grand irony of your worldview becomes too much to absorb.

When faced with a reasonable challenge to your assertions, you resort to ideology and overgeneralizing concepts rather than measured argument to defend your stance. The evidence is in the 7-page evolution of your argument. First, you tried to back your positions with dubious "facts" backed by dubious sources. After these were quashed by Bfgrn, you resorted to political attacks, and labeling proponents of health care reform as "communists", followed by your lectures on why communism failed. Rather than concede some points, or at least offer alternative solutions to the current health care crisis (as Maple does very well on page 5), you have established yourself as a hard-headed individual who really has nothing to bring to the health care debate.

The grand irony of your argument is that you clearly deplore ideology as a governing force in public policy...

Once upon a time the cognoscenti were proud to tell all that they were communists! Proud to be on the cutting edge of societal thought, clearly ahead of everyone else. But once the horrendous nature of the ideology became apparent, it was no longer possible to wear that badge.

...yet, you have fully embraced ideology both in your arguments and within your wider paradigm. You deplore any public policy solution or element that comes from the left of center, suggesting that everything can only be solved with a right-wing approach. And anything that challenges orthodox free market theory is tantamount to communism. You employ dubious facts to give your ideological worldview a face of pragmatism, but when your arguments are challenged, you begin to exercise political epithets and change the topic from health care reform to a condemnation of everything liberal.

Hypocritically, these are the very things you accuse your opponents of doing (your 3rd post in page 5), without realizing the grand irony: your post on page 5 was itself a pathetic attempt to change the topic and divert everyone's attention from the failures and unsustainable nature of your argument.

One of the classic tactics used by extreme right-wingers such as yourself is your warnings to the general public that a proposed legislation that you disagree with is tantamount to communism, and then you feel the need to remind us about the failures of that economic model. Whether this is just a propaganda strategy to turn the public against a proposed public policy that would disadvantage special interests or if you truly believe what you're saying, this tactic operates under the premise that communism is still a threat to economic systems around the world and is currently on the rise.

In reality, this presumption is completely false, as we have all witnessed the collapse of communist economies from Eastern Europe to China and Vietnam. China and Vietnam are currently ruled by communist parties, but both opened their economies to private sector involvement in 1978 and 1986 respectively, a move that neither government regrets, and which brought both countries considerable wealth. The only orthodox communist economy left is North Korea; even Cuba has moved -albeit very slowly- towards market liberalization. (And "market liberalization" means free market, not "liberal" as it is used in American public discourse denoting the political left of center).

Privatizations have also taken place in non-communist countries, such as Canada and the Western European nations, which you dubiously label as "socialist". For example, in Western Europe, many industries, such as automobile industries, aerospace firms, and airlines, which were once state-owned entities are now either entirely or majority privatized. In many instances, the European Union even upholds stricter guidelines [than the United States does] against public subsidies to industries and against monopolies, and enforcing competition and market liberalization.

But there is also an acknowledgment in Western Europe, Canada, Japan, China, and almost every other developed or emerging economy, including the United States, that the market does not address everything. In the United States, we have public schools, public libraries, and state universities. Roads and sidewalks are paid for and maintained by your tax dollars. Ports and airports are run by government entities. So are public transit systems. And these public services are crucial for the private sector to thrive. Otherwise, businesses can't hire skilled and educated people, they can't transport their goods, and their employees can't commute to work. Sometimes the private sector also gets involved in these services (such as building and maintaining toll roads), but it usually doesn't because these industries are usually not profitable and/or cannot survive without government subsidy. So even where the private sector does get involved, it's usually in conjunction with the public sector, in the form of public-private cooperation. (Public-private cooperation is a strategy often used to build major infrastructure projects. Government entity needs to build a crucial project for public use, while a private consortium is either looking for work or to invest [or both] and thus earn a profit. Both the private and public sectors realize they can't go at this project alone, so they cooperate).

Socialism and capitalism are not competing forces; they are merely opposite ends of a political spectrum. Both are ideologies that can complement each other. One addresses wealth creation, the other wealth distribution. Each individual public policy situation merits an individually-crafted solution, that may draw more from one end than the other. However, the term "socialist" -which to many Americans is interchangeable with "communist", as a result of decades of Cold War propaganda- is frequently used by the American right, to turn public opinion away from public policies proposed by the left, even if the majority of Americans would support those same policies under different wording.

The alarm and panic surrounding the "communist" nature of health care reform, or any other proposed legislation or public policy, is completely unsubstantiated with no footing in reality. But Republicans and the corporate interests that support them know how to launch an effective propaganda campaign against select government subsidized programs or proposed programs that would disadvantage the special interests. Of course, what these Republicans and corporate interests do not discuss in a politically-charged public forum, is that there are select other government subsidized programs that they either acknowledge as necessary or that benefit them very well. Additionally, they love to condemn certain government apportioned services or proposed services as incompatible with democracy, despite the fact that they are or would be administered by the very state that they tout as the world's most democratic.

Thus, as always, a grand irony.

Playing dumb?

Communism in theory and Communism in practice.

Considering the general role of welfare state policies in sustaining macroeconomic stabilization and general efficiency in the capitalist economy, they're ultimately supportive of the arrangement wherein the means of production are privately owned. The "communist" epithet is a mere absurdity used only for the purpose of ideological warfare. It's unfortunately even worse than the typically misapplied "socialist" label too.

Precisely.

 

[mskafka]

Great topic Pol chic - some of us read the writing on the wall last year and some are just now recovering from their Kool Aid hangover

Isn't Acorn an association of communitarian organizers?

Man I'd love to see some of BHOs old college papers.

Are the Young Republicans a bunch of Fascists?

I don't have to see college papers to ascertain that the Bush administration was composed of people with definate Fascist leanings.

Statement of Principles

That has certainly been a rumor.

 

[sparky]

Socialism and capitalism are not competing forces; they are merely opposite ends of a political spectrum. Both are ideologies that can complement each other. One addresses wealth creation, the other wealth distribution. Each individual public policy situation merits an individually-crafted solution, that may draw more from one end than the other. However, the term "socialist" -which to many Americans is interchangeable with "communist", as a result of decades of Cold War propaganda- is frequently used by the American right, to turn public opinion away from public policies proposed by the left, even if the majority of Americans would support those same policies under different wording.

yes well, while everyone is yammering about the new communism it would seem they haven't a clue as to the old capitalism which spawned it.......

 

[Bfgrn]

July 29, 2009
Categories: Healthcare

Euthenasia?

I was a little puzzled to see the claim that health care reform was the fast track to euthanasia surface in recent days; Carrie Budoff Brown has the background, which is an obscure provision requiring coverage for end-of-life consultations.

The reality:

The provision would require Medicare to cover advanced care consultations for the first time, but it does not mandate individuals to take advantage of the benefit, proponents say. The consultations would take place between the patient and a doctor or nurse practitioner, not a government bureaucrat. And there would be no requirement for the individual to sign a directive or living will at the end of the discussion.

“This measure would not only help people make the best decisions for themselves but also better ensure that their wishes are followed,” AARP Executive Vice President John Rother said in a statement. “To suggest otherwise is a gross, and even cruel, distortion — especially for any family that has been forced to make the difficult decisions on care for loved ones approaching the end of their lives.”

Jon Keyserling, vice president for public policy and counsel at the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization, said: “I was surprised that any responsible legislative analyst would indicate this is a mandatory provision. That is just a misreading of the language and, certainly, of the intent.”

This sort of line of attack -- an intense focus on, and in this case distortion of -- a narrow provision is a key part of how health care changes were defeated in 1993. The new media environment is much less hospitable, I think, to this sort of thing. In fact, for all the talk of dumbing down media, you can find a very nuanced, rich policy debate based on original documents all over the place, and while myths spread fast, the practice of nipping them in the bud is a well-developed one.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/

 

[Political Junky]

July 29, 2009
Categories: Healthcare

Euthenasia?

I was a little puzzled to see the claim that health care reform was the fast track to euthanasia surface in recent days; Carrie Budoff Brown has the background, which is an obscure provision requiring coverage for end-of-life consultations.

The reality:

The provision would require Medicare to cover advanced care consultations for the first time, but it does not mandate individuals to take advantage of the benefit, proponents say. The consultations would take place between the patient and a doctor or nurse practitioner, not a government bureaucrat. And there would be no requirement for the individual to sign a directive or living will at the end of the discussion.

“This measure would not only help people make the best decisions for themselves but also better ensure that their wishes are followed,” AARP Executive Vice President John Rother said in a statement. “To suggest otherwise is a gross, and even cruel, distortion — especially for any family that has been forced to make the difficult decisions on care for loved ones approaching the end of their lives.”

Jon Keyserling, vice president for public policy and counsel at the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization, said: “I was surprised that any responsible legislative analyst would indicate this is a mandatory provision. That is just a misreading of the language and, certainly, of the intent.”

This sort of line of attack -- an intense focus on, and in this case distortion of -- a narrow provision is a key part of how health care changes were defeated in 1993. The new media environment is much less hospitable, I think, to this sort of thing. In fact, for all the talk of dumbing down media, you can find a very nuanced, rich policy debate based on original documents all over the place, and while myths spread fast, the practice of nipping them in the bud is a well-developed one.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/

 

[PoliticalChic]

I think you might want to brush up on the differences between communism and democracy.
Communism, and the other totalist philosophies view the state as more important than the individual.
This premise is on view in the Communitarian authorship of the healthcare plan in Congress.
The answer to this question will reveal to you why the plan is, as I have stated, more attuned to the policies of the former Soviet Union, or the current Democratic Republic of North Korea, than the United States of America: What kind of thinking would encourage the demise of our senior citizens in order to save the state medical costs?

Unfortunately, you have succumbed to his kind of thinking if you view the policies of Canada and the UK as superior to those of the United States. These countries believe in equality of treatment, lowering same for all, rather than the best possible drugs and technology available. Available is the operative term...

...And, when you get around to reviewing Das Kapital, you should read as a companion piece
“The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression,” which is a compilation of research edited by French scholar Stephane Courtois, totals over 100 million victims of Communist murder during the 20th Century.

Are you comparing Britain and Canada to the Soviet Union and North Korea?

Political Chic,

After reading too many pages of your posts, the gross ignorance and grand irony of your worldview becomes too much to absorb.

When faced with a reasonable challenge to your assertions, you resort to ideology and overgeneralizing concepts rather than measured argument to defend your stance. The evidence is in the 7-page evolution of your argument. First, you tried to back your positions with dubious "facts" backed by dubious sources. After these were quashed by Bfgrn, you resorted to political attacks, and labeling proponents of health care reform as "communists", followed by your lectures on why communism failed. Rather than concede some points, or at least offer alternative solutions to the current health care crisis (as Maple does very well on page 5), you have established yourself as a hard-headed individual who really has nothing to bring to the health care debate.

The grand irony of your argument is that you clearly deplore ideology as a governing force in public policy...

Once upon a time the cognoscenti were proud to tell all that they were communists! Proud to be on the cutting edge of societal thought, clearly ahead of everyone else. But once the horrendous nature of the ideology became apparent, it was no longer possible to wear that badge.

...yet, you have fully embraced ideology both in your arguments and within your wider paradigm. You deplore any public policy solution or element that comes from the left of center, suggesting that everything can only be solved with a right-wing approach. And anything that challenges orthodox free market theory is tantamount to communism. You employ dubious facts to give your ideological worldview a face of pragmatism, but when your arguments are challenged, you begin to exercise political epithets and change the topic from health care reform to a condemnation of everything liberal.

Hypocritically, these are the very things you accuse your opponents of doing (your 3rd post in page 5), without realizing the grand irony: your post on page 5 was itself a pathetic attempt to change the topic and divert everyone's attention from the failures and unsustainable nature of your argument.

One of the classic tactics used by extreme right-wingers such as yourself is your warnings to the general public that a proposed legislation that you disagree with is tantamount to communism, and then you feel the need to remind us about the failures of that economic model. Whether this is just a propaganda strategy to turn the public against a proposed public policy that would disadvantage special interests or if you truly believe what you're saying, this tactic operates under the premise that communism is still a threat to economic systems around the world and is currently on the rise.

In reality, this presumption is completely false, as we have all witnessed the collapse of communist economies from Eastern Europe to China and Vietnam. China and Vietnam are currently ruled by communist parties, but both opened their economies to private sector involvement in 1978 and 1986 respectively, a move that neither government regrets, and which brought both countries considerable wealth. The only orthodox communist economy left is North Korea; even Cuba has moved -albeit very slowly- towards market liberalization. (And "market liberalization" means free market, not "liberal" as it is used in American public discourse denoting the political left of center).

Privatizations have also taken place in non-communist countries, such as Canada and the Western European nations, which you dubiously label as "socialist". For example, in Western Europe, many industries, such as automobile industries, aerospace firms, and airlines, which were once state-owned entities are now either entirely or majority privatized. In many instances, the European Union even upholds stricter guidelines [than the United States does] against public subsidies to industries and against monopolies, and enforcing competition and market liberalization.

But there is also an acknowledgment in Western Europe, Canada, Japan, China, and almost every other developed or emerging economy, including the United States, that the market does not address everything. In the United States, we have public schools, public libraries, and state universities. Roads and sidewalks are paid for and maintained by your tax dollars. Ports and airports are run by government entities. So are public transit systems. And these public services are crucial for the private sector to thrive. Otherwise, businesses can't hire skilled and educated people, they can't transport their goods, and their employees can't commute to work. Sometimes the private sector also gets involved in these services (such as building and maintaining toll roads), but it usually doesn't because these industries are usually not profitable and/or cannot survive without government subsidy. So even where the private sector does get involved, it's usually in conjunction with the public sector, in the form of public-private cooperation. (Public-private cooperation is a strategy often used to build major infrastructure projects. Government entity needs to build a crucial project for public use, while a private consortium is either looking for work or to invest [or both] and thus earn a profit. Both the private and public sectors realize they can't go at this project alone, so they cooperate).

Socialism and capitalism are not competing forces; they are merely opposite ends of a political spectrum. Both are ideologies that can complement each other. One addresses wealth creation, the other wealth distribution. Each individual public policy situation merits an individually-crafted solution, that may draw more from one end than the other. However, the term "socialist" -which to many Americans is interchangeable with "communist", as a result of decades of Cold War propaganda- is frequently used by the American right, to turn public opinion away from public policies proposed by the left, even if the majority of Americans would support those same policies under different wording.

The alarm and panic surrounding the "communist" nature of health care reform, or any other proposed legislation or public policy, is completely unsubstantiated with no footing in reality. But Republicans and the corporate interests that support them know how to launch an effective propaganda campaign against select government subsidized programs or proposed programs that would disadvantage the special interests. Of course, what these Republicans and corporate interests do not discuss in a politically-charged public forum, is that there are select other government subsidized programs that they either acknowledge as necessary or that benefit them very well. Additionally, they love to condemn certain government apportioned services or proposed services as incompatible with democracy, despite the fact that they are or would be administered by the very state that they tout as the world's most democratic.

Thus, as always, a grand irony.

Playing dumb?

Communism in theory and Communism in practice.

Considering the general role of welfare state policies in sustaining macroeconomic stabilization and general efficiency in the capitalist economy, they're ultimately supportive of the arrangement wherein the means of production are privately owned. The "communist" epithet is a mere absurdity used only for the purpose of ideological warfare. It's unfortunately even worse than the typically misapplied "socialist" label too.

Precisely.

Nicely written.

"...too much to absorb..." I understand your limitations.

"dubious "facts" backed by dubious sources..." Why didn't you provide same?

"...individual who really has nothing to bring to the health care debate." Than why are you providing this interesting reading material? As Shakespeare so aptly stated, methinks you protest too much.

"...You deplore any public policy solution or element that comes from the left of center, suggesting that everything can only be solved with a right-wing approach." Classic straw-man argument. Examples are required.

"...condemnation of everything liberal." I admit that, this being so easy, I sometimes take the lazy route.

"...this tactic operates under the premise that communism is still a threat to economic systems around the world and is currently on the rise. " I'll buy that. My 'warnings' are based on the direction of the leftist administration and the hope that I'll never be able to say 'I told you so."

Did you notice that the current administration controls the profits of 30% of the economy, and with healthcare, would control 47%? Daunting? Or is this the capitalism that has taken us from feudalism and been the wonderful engine of freedom?

"The alarm and panic surrounding the "communist" nature of health care reform, or any other proposed legislation or public policy, is completely unsubstantiated with no footing in reality." See, the problem with your writing, eloquent though it is, is that you make broad incorrect statements with no foundation, and fold your arms and strut away as though you were victorious. Do better.

"...dubious facts ..." Begging the question.

Referring to 'warnings' and 'propaganda strategy' usually means you have no point to make. Logic requires you to specifiy and show they are incorrect.



The gaping flaw is that you have not selected, identified, specified any of the points in the healthcare bill that I and others have criticized.

So, would you like to debate 1)that there will be long waits for procedures?

2) Or rationing of healthcare?

3) Or an increased burden on the elderly?

4) Or that the program will be over $1 trillion in costs?

Yes, I claim that the direction and import of the currenct administration is leftist, socialist and ultimately communist, in that the death of those who require excessive procedures, and cost, will be encouraged. But with time of the essence, it is cleat why you would rather remain in the theoretical realm.

I like your post, please come back.