House Leadership Memo Urges Dems: Remember That Public Option Has Tons Of Support
In a sign that House Dem leaders remain committed to making a public option a part of health care reform, the leadership is urging members in a new polling memo to keep in mind that the public plan remains overwhelmingly popular despite weeks of attacks on it.
The memo — which will be distributed to members of Congress and others later this morning and was sent over by a leadership aide — is designed to arm Congressional Dems with ammo to beat back claims that the public option’s popularity has tanked.
“Coordinated attacks by Republicans and other opponents of health insurance reform have had little effect on the strong support for a public health insurance option,” the memo reads.
The memo, which comes as intra-Dem fighting over the public option is set to intensify, also sends a simple message to centrist Dems: The public wants this done. The memo, which you can read right here, reproduces much recent polling in a handy chart:
Three recent polls show overwhelming support for the public option, and the fourth poll, by Rasmussen, finds a large majority opposes a plan without one. The memo also stresses that the pulic plan gets much greater support when you offer respondents a “choice.”
The memo’s goal: To put some spine into individual members spooked by the relentless assault on reform and the chorus of punditry claiming that the public option will have to be nixed in order to get reform done.
This blog’s homepage is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.
You know…it is almost unbelievable to me that they would have to be reminded of this. Are they this detached from every day Americans? Is the Beltway bubble so strong?
I live in the DC area and work just a half mile from the Hill. I’ve been here just 3 years and I remain stunned at how easily some people here detach themselves from the experiences of people outside of DC.
I mean, do members of congress honestly think that people do not want access to healthcare? or that people actually want to keep paying higher premiums and co-pays for less and less service?? Our company’s premiums went up 23% last year! and this year they told us to expect another double digit increase! WTF?
Sweet Jeebus…it is like they cut out your heart before they allow you on the Hill.
The Chorus of Punditry: you have to wonder at the fact that this gang is too committed to being part of the power elite to provide trenchant critiques on any issue.
It’s a very simple and compelling framing. One assumes a concerted effort to move it out into the public realm (weeks of repetition by spokespeople in as many papers/shows as possible). To the degree that this would get done, to that degree the ‘townhall’ folks would be properly contrasted as odd and extremist. Why it isn’t happening is beyond me.
Doh edit: add “would be effective’ to sentence two.
You can not nationalize 1/6 of the US economy without huge ramifications. Our Nation is beyond broke. WE CAN NOT AFFORD THIS. THE GOVT IS NOT THE ANSWER. How is it possible for anyone to believe that a government health plan is a good idea after the month we have had. Please read a recent Op Ed titled Health-Care Reform: A Better Plan by Charles Krauthammer.
Slice and dice it anyway you want it I guess. Do you want the reall #’s vs the ones that are manipulated above? Here are the real results from Rasmussen:
43% Favor vs 53% Oppose
Nice to see the Dems use the top two “favor” numbers, but only one of the “oppose”.
They continue to make the point of why we don’t trust them.
23% Strongly favor
20% Somewhat favor
10% Somewhat oppose
43% Strongly oppose
4% Not sure
Quinnipiac: 8/20/09
Do you agree or disagree with the following: Overhauling the nation’s health care system is so important that it should be enacted even if it significantly increases the federal budget deficit.
37% Agree
59% Disagree
Are they just making these numbers up?
To hell with what the polls say. If we had allowed popular opinion to decide if we should get rid of slavery, segregation, and to let women vote, we would never have done so.
Social justice, and civil rights should never be at the mercy of polling results, taken after demagogues have planted the seeds of hate and obstruction.
Profiles in Courage are not awarded for doing what is popular. They are awarded for doing what is right, when the right thing is not popular.
To all you so called Christians out there. Jesus did not rely on popularity, he did what was right, and he was willing to pay the price for doing so. Jesus was a Profile in Courage.
“Do unto others………….”,
Or stop claiming that you are a follower of Jesus.
I don’t think anyone is talking about nationalizing the health care system. A Medicare-for-all system would simply nationalize health insurance (and in that case, nationalizing the system as much as public schools or USPS. You can opt out and get private if you want) letting doctors, pharma, etc. continue to be privatized. We only need some adjustments in payment of those fields since doctors and pharma are providing the goods and services people need, just at an inflated price.
I’ve asked this three times now and still no response: What are the benefits of private insurance if they do not provide services at a level the public demands and/or a price the general public can reasonably afford? If capitalism is the mechanism for innovation, what innovations are spurred by private health insurance?
People need to get out of this Reaganite “guvment BAD” mindset. If we all agree that the general public should pay for police protection, fire protection, and military protection, then why shouldn’t it pay for medical protection?
@Chris Walker – Thanks for the reading tip. Krauthammer is, of course, a psychiatrist. For advice on economics, perhaps one might wish to turn to an economist, perhaps one might even want to turn to a Nobel winner. Please read a recent op ed by one here… http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/28/opinion/28krugman.html?hp
also nice to see these numbers were pulled for Quinnipiac and Kaiser before the or just when the House/Senate went on break….before there was any real discussion.
@Liam
Good to see you stand up for GWB too since he did what was unpopular and liberated 50 million Iraqi’s from a tyrant dictator and spread freedom and equality for women in the muslim world. Profile in courage? or Liar, snake, dumb, good for nothing, shoot from the hip Texan?
Today’s notable headline…
“Limbaugh: You’ll pry my foreskin from my cold, dead hands”
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/
Patches….I’ll try to answer your question…
I think many people would like government not to become an insurance business, but I would like for government to fix the infrastructure that could allow for more private companies to compete. Case in point….in my county Cigna does not offer HMO, but in the county just north of me they do. They have to get approval for each county to do business in and approval cost money for each county. Why not allow them to do business in any state or county without having to pay for each county? They are working within the confines of the structure government has mandated.
I know Cigna and others could be doing more, lots more, but how about we try to free them(insurance companies) from this type of ridiculous restraints and do business anywhere without having to incur a fee everytime they move….if that doesn’t work, then lets talk about govt option then.
Hope that helps?…
@Ayers for Senate – I suspect we’d agree that providing choices allows consumers to sort out what they find optimal or best or satisfactory and then they will demonstrate a predictable loyalty to the choice they’ve found agreeable. That is, after all, the fundamental rationale supporting freedom of enterprise and freedom of choice.
As it happens, the US is unique among western nations in not having some form of government-managed health program (except Medicaire, of course, which seniors find very agreeable). It is also the case than in not a single one of those other nations have the voters (healthcare program consumers) moved to support or elect a political party who campaigns on a platform of returning to a system such as the US now has. How does this broad and universal choice to keep their systems fit into your thinking?
The Right Wingers(Notice how those trolls used names that are intended to continue spreading their false claims from last year) never stop creating fiction,and rewriting history.
Now you have one of them claiming that President Bush invaded Iraq, even though the polls showed that it was an unpopular to do. That is a complete lie. The polls were overwhelmingly behind him, when he launched the invasion. Anyone who was protesting the coming invasion knows what a head wind we were facing, when we tried to warn people of what a disaster it would be.
That is why the few leaders, like Senator Kennedy, who voted against it, and spoke out against it, were actually being very courageous.
As for the pathetic claim that Bush liberated the women of Iraq, nothing could be further from the truth. As bad a place as it was under Saddam, women had much greater freedom, and participation in public life then, than they do now.
The shift in excuses we get for why Bush invaded Iraq:
First it was because he had WMD, and the Mushroom cloud was looming over us.
When that big lie got exposed, then they did it for to sow the seeds of Democracy in Iran and Syria.(I will pause here, to allow you to regain your breath after you stop laughing at that one.)
Now we have the latest crock from those Chicken Hawk war mongers. They sent in Halliburton, and Blackwater, to free the women of Iraq from their western style attire and professional jobs, teaching, Doctoring, etc, and liberate them into their current Burkas of freedom.
well, the offensive wingnut trolls with their offensive names and offensive lies are here bright & early. wonder if they get paid by the no. of words they can type.
@bernie
“How does this broad and universal choice to keep their systems fit into your thinking?”
I’m not 100% on your question, but I”ll give it a try. I think that’s the problem with most American..we’ve never really wanted to do what the Euro’s do, however, we also don’t want to go into a govt system as who can remember the last time a govt program ended(other than CFC(success!!)). This is why changing Social Security was too hard….giving americans 2% of their SS to invest themselves was changing a govt program. I’m straying from your point though….
If govt wants to do these sweeping reforms like a public option, can’t they just test it somewhere first for 5 years like in Mass or New York….then if it works, we’ll enact it all over the US? Medicare isn’t really successful…I paid $3500 last to medicare and never used it…someone did, so I feel like I’m already doing my part. I will work until 65-70 with insurance then I guess I’ll use the $140000 I put into medicare for the final 5 years of my life.
Mr. Sargent:
“In a sign that House Dem leaders remain committed to making a public option a part of health care reform, the leadership is urging members in a new polling memo to keep in mind that the public plan remains overwhelmingly popular despite weeks of attacks on it.”
This is Pelosi and Reid trying to sell their scheme to their own fellow Democrats:
“Who are you going to believe? Those cranks at your town hall meetings in your district, or US? You constituents REALLY REALLY want single-payer!”
The “astroturfing” meme fell flat, The eeeeevil insurance and pharma companies pitch was called a ball, and now the leadership is trying to pitch heir cherry-picked polls…to other professional politicians!
Look, kids, if the numbers were as firm as they are touted to be, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
Are they this detached from every day Americans? Is the Beltway bubble so strong?
Yes.
WE CAN NOT AFFORD THIS. THE GOVT IS NOT THE ANSWER.
We can not afford to do nothing because that is an even more expensive path to take. It’s not an accident that the bills paid by Medicare have been rising far more slowly than have the bills paid via private health insurance.
The reality is that the private sector is not the answer.
Patches:
“I don’t think anyone is talking about nationalizing the health care system. A Medicare-for-all system would simply nationalize health insurance (and in that case, nationalizing the system as much as public schools or USPS. You can opt out and get private if you want)”
You DO realize that it is the record of Medicare that is your greatest obstacle in this debate, right?
When they started it, LBJ and his Whiz Kids said that it would cost 11 billion dollars in 1990, adjusted for inflation.
Not off by much, huh? A factor 10? 20?
The government’s past track record of providing medical care,(outside of elected Federal officials), is horrendous.
That’s your real problem in trying to promote this.
Even Rasmussen last night of Fox news admitted, even with all this negativeness coming out, popularity is no longer dropping.
People are starting to wake up and realize they are being lied to by Republicans and the right wing corporate funded astro-turfing campaigns.
It was a good run boys while you had it. Now get out of the way while the adults fix what you’ve managed to neglect and destroy.
amk
It pays $0
However if you want to make money doing what you do now, you can go to http://www.jobsthatmatter.org or http://www.calpirg.com
I know they pay anywhere from $16/hour or 33k per year to be an astro…I mean grassroots organizer.
Boy we are growing trolls by the day huh? lol I think its a sign that the right wingers are panicked. Its not a coincidence that they show up mostly in the health care reform threads either. Notice how they all have the same talking points too. Its funny to me really that they keep showing up spouting debunked nonesense only to have it debunked again in comments and then have them try to change the subject. Health care reform is coming with a public option and it doesn’t matter how many Bill Ayers, Rev Wright, or variation of socialism screenname shows up to post here its still going to happen. And ironically enough it will more than likely help every single one of the sock puppets that come here everyday to oppose it.
By the way, somebody asked why we don’t try a public option first and see how it goes. We already have, its called Medicare and yeah, it works.
Looking at public opinion polls does not address what I believe to be the root cause of a critical debate that has dengenerated into such absurdities a “death panels” now a death book…”government takeovers…well I could obviously go on and on here.
As a former broadcast journalist it saddens me to see what passes for reporting these days, especially the so called “fair and balanced journalism” of cable “news”! The current health care debate is the perfect illustration of the failure of the fourth estate to serve our nation.
It would have been so simple for any organization, broadcast or cable, to round up several dozen of the folks screaming, Nazi, Hitler, socialism, as well as the more rational opponents at the “town halls” hosted by our elected representatives and ask them questions germane to their objections. I understand the screaming, profane signs, and firearms make for exciting television, but doesn’t substance matter at all? Broadcast journalism has consistently placed ratings above the good of the nation! I would love to see these people respectfully interviewed and asked a few basic questions to place their “opinions” in the proper perspective.
1.) Ask them to define socialized medicine, single payer system, and private system, as well as the public option. Do they really know?
2.) Ask them if they are aware that all three are already in place in the United States and if they can name what they are called in our country?
3.) Ask if they know the results of surveys done about all three systems in our nation and which are the most popular with their consumers, and which are judged best in terms of patient outcomes and services by independent medical organizations?
In the United States we have socialized medicine known as the Veterans Administration, single payer known as Medicare and Medicaid, and of course the private systems run by the insurance companies. Surveys consistently show the Veterans, or socialized system scores highest among its consumers, Medicare runs second, with the privately insured expressing far less satisfaction. Most independent groups also rate the VA as providing the best health care and even the ultra conservative William Kristol has conceded the VA provides the best health care.
As somebody who interviewed dozens of foreigners during the first health care debate of the early 90’s I can assure you I found none of the mythology sold to our nation by the insurance companies to be correct. The foreigners were happy with their systems and yes that even includes the Canadians. Let’s stop insulting everybody else’s health care systems by making socialized medicine and single payer pejorative terms, instead of objective descriptions. Maybe we could open our eyes to some facts. Or maybe it’s like the Jack Nicholson character so famously said in the movies…”We can’t handle the truth!” It upsets our “fair and balanced” thinking!
No, that didn’t help at all. You answered neither of my questions. You didn’t provide me with the advantages of private insurance over public. You also didn’t give me any innovation created by private insurance.
I think many people would like government not to become an insurance business, but I would like for government to fix the infrastructure that could allow for more private companies to compete.
First, you do exactly what I asked you not to; you reverted immediately into a diatribe about “guvment bad” as though it is an intrisnic truth. Government can do good and bad because it is run be people, who have that same innate characteristic. That’s why we need to elect people who can write and execute laws as the people require instead of who gave them how much cash. Second, why is health insurance a business? What good comes from health insurance being for profit other than to be a make-work give away that cyphons money away from health care? I don’t want the government to “go into the health insurance business”. I want the government to protect, me, my friends, my family, and every american from disease and injury just as it protects me from robbery, assualt, murder, fire, and terrorism.
Why not allow them to do business in any state or county without having to pay for each county? They are working within the confines of the structure government has mandated.
A national exchange is in the bill and I’m more than happy to let insurer’s move across state lines freely. But when you’ve had to deal with people complaining for years about any encrouchment on states rights…
if that doesn’t work, then lets talk about govt option then.
A public option can be held accountable by the people. If it doesn’t work, we have our representatives get rid of it. If it does, we can solve some of the health care woes in this country. But we will never have that kind of power over private insurance. Period.
All that stupid rabble rousing racist tea-baggers with their voilence memed antics have now shot their wad to early and the vile media has with its gleeful coverage of town-howlers has actually helped open the eyes of the public about the repubs. HC reform with strong public option is going be a reality soon. Eat it, repubs.
@Ayers for Senate
Thanks for the response. Let’s address it in parts.
First, I suspect we’d agree if we worked it over a while that “not wanting to do something because Europeans do it” isn’t terribly rational. Just reverse this “we europeans don’t want to do X because the yanks do it”. It looks like the sort of prejudice that prevents a full and objective look at whatever is in question. Besides, there is the Canadian example.
Second, paraphrasing, “government programs tend to stay in place”. Sure, they probably do. But that’s a problem only so far as one equates, in some absolute way, government with badness. The military, highways, legal system, social security, police, fire, the courts, etc etc all fall within that range of government services we’d be hesitant, I suspect, to dismantle.
“Why not test it somewhere?”. But of course, isn’t that the real question I just put to you in the earlier post? I see no reason to assume that citizens of a county in Ohio will somehow have a different experience than the citizens of Saskatchewan or the English midlands – given the universal approval everywhere outside of the US for such programs (not absolute happiness, of course, that’s unattainable). And don’t you suspect that if your idea was tried utilizing some pilot project in a small jurisdiction in Mass or New York, and if it gained broad majority favor and support, than some people would still reject the idea simply as an ideological stance? (Besides, you do already have such a pilot program in place and the beneficiaries do not wish it changed. Medicaire for those over the arbitrary age of 65).
I sympathize with your point on costs. But I have the same response re the cost of autos and houses and food. I’ve been in the US for six years (married a pretty Texan) after 55 years in Canada. There, I invested less than $100 a month for daughter and self and enjoyed excellent care through that full period. Waits for service not different from what I’ve found here. Could change my doctor any time I wanted or use many if I would have thought that better. But if a wait time arises, one can throw in some extra money above the monthly and get that service sooner. I never had to do that nor have any of my family.
And it is the case in Canada that no party, no matter how conservative, has even suggested dismantling this system. They haven’t because there is effectively zero demand from citizens for that. Consumer satisfaction in Canada, as elsewhere, has produced this loyalty.
Greg…
When can we expect a retraction and apology of your false allegation against Stephen Hayes yesterday? If you are a standup guy, you should at the very least admit your mistake, even if you continue to avoid taking on the substance Hayes’ argument.
@Scott C. – I think we are all waiting for Stephen, a standup guy, to clarify for himself that the term “false” means what pretty much everyone else takes it to mean.
Thank you patches for pointing out what wingnuts can’t seem to digest. If Ronald Reagan wanted to be correct instead of slick movie star demagogue he would have accurately stated, BAD government is not the solution, it is the problem. Why we hold private industry on such a pedastal mystifies me. The facts are that bureaucrats are bureaucrats whether they work for the government or private industry. Anybody tried to make an airline reservation recently that was too involved for a website to handle online. Good luck! It’s no more charming an experience than dealing with the IRS.
Nobody is claiming that Medicare/Medicaid or the VA are perfect, or that Canada’s single payer system is flawless…or that just because the World Health Organization ranked France first in healthcare and the U.S 27th we necessarily wish to go to the French socialized model. But REALLY it’s impossible to even discuss the important issue of healthcare with Republicans because it’s like the invasion of the brain snatchers has arrived and turned people like Michael Steele, Palin, Grassley, Boehner into blathering idiots. Actually I believe on a couple in that group are idiots….the rest are just heartless traitors bought and paid for by big insurance companies. As much as I dislike Palin she at least has an excuse…she watches Glen Beck!!!!
@rukidding – “Why we hold private industry on such a pedastal mystifies me.”
Might we presume or at least suspect that private industry had some hand in devising and forwarding this notion? John Dewey famously wrote, “Politics is the shadow cast by business.”
Nate Silver being typically wise on the polls…
“This is mostly a debate being had among policy elites and the relatively small fraction of the public that is highly knowledgeable and engaged about health care reform; for most others, the details are lost on them. This is also why relatively small changes in wording can trigger dramatic shifts in support for the public option, which has been as high as 83 percent in some polls and as low as 35 percent in others depending on who is doing the polling and how they’re asking the questions. You don’t see those sorts of discrepancies when polling about, say, gay marriage or the death penalty, where the options are a little bit more self-evident.”
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/08/poll-most-dont-know-what-public-option.html
You guys win, you have made me want to actually have WJC back in office or atleast HRC.
“or atleast HRC.”
So we’d fail at this again? You think the Clintons would do this differently? That somehow they’d manage it without growing government or spending any money?
@tena
What made the 90’s so successful? I don’t think it was government spending. I think it was a divided government that worked to lower spending and help businesses create jobs.
HRC would have known not to try this healthcare stuff again…her husband learned his lesson and he has Newt Gingrich to thank for it.
“HRC would have known not to try this healthcare stuff agai”
That’s crazy. Yes she would have. Presidents have been trying for 60 years to do thia and the Clintons desperately wanted to.
You’re dead wrong.
sgwhiteinfla: “By the way, somebody asked why we don’t try a public option first and see how it goes. We already have, its called Medicare and yeah, it works.”
I wonder what your definition of “works” is. If by “works” you mean that some small proportion of the population is getting some measure of healthcare at little or no cost to themselves, then yes, it works. However, if by “works” you mean that it is efficient, cost effective, and sustainable in perpetuity, it clearly does not work. It is going bankrupt, it has no rational way of determining the true economic value of procedures it covers, it has no rational method of allocating scarce resources across increasingly unlimited demand, and increasing numbers of doctors are refusing to accept medicare patients, It would be a strange notion indeed to claim that such a system “works”.
BTW, even if we do accept the dubious notion that medicare “works”, that is no reason to think that applying the same principles across the entire population would also work. Consider:
Suppose, in a population of 100 people, 90 of them have an income of $1,000, and 10 of them have an income of 0. A system is then devised such that the 90 people each donate $100 to a pool set aside for the use of the 10 people. In such a system, all 100 people will have a net income of $900. Does this system “work”? Sure…it provides 10 people with a “free” income of $900. Will it work if you try to expand the system to include everyone? Of course not. I assume you can work out why.
As Margaret Thatcher famously said, socialism does not work because eventually you run out of other people’s money.
“I wonder what your definition of “works” is. If by “works” you mean that some small proportion of the population is getting some measure of healthcare at little or no cost to themselves, then yes, it works.”
You know I can tell the people who have never dealt with Medicare – they say this ****.
Let me tell you something = Medicare is the best thing since oxygen. I went through both my parents’ final illnsses and deaths with them and without Medicare I’d be bankrupt.
You characterize it as some people getting some care? That ain’t how it works – everyone who qualified is cared for, and depending on whether they have supplemental insurance to cover the gaps, it either costs you nothing or very little to get every bit of care you need and then some. My parents got too much attention from doctors.
Bernie L.: “I think we are all waiting for Stephen, a standup guy, to clarify for himself that the term “false” means what pretty much everyone else takes it to mean.”
Not sure I understand you at all. To clarify, Greg accused Hayes of doing something that he quite demostrably did not do. Do you honestly deny this?
Since this has been demonstrated, Greg has remained silent on the issue The only honorable course for Greg, given the demonstrably false accusation he made, is to admit his mistake (I assume it was a mistake, and not a deliberate falsehood), and apologize to Hayes. Greg’s honor, such as it is, dwindles with each passing hour that he fails to do so.
“Not sure I understand you at all. To clarify, Greg accused Hayes of doing something that he quite demostrably did not do. Do you honestly deny this?”
All the little Hayes trolls are giving themselves away as fast as they can. Your hero must be really burning up over Greg’s exposing his hackitude.
@ Scott
Oh, gee, let’ see what capitalism did to aig, citigroup and other too-big-to-fail banks and greedy corporations ? Oh, that’s right, they did run out of money and were before the frigging gobinment with their begging bowls in hand.
You Fail, big time.
and scott
stop whining about that POS, hayes
@Scott C. – “Do you honestly deny this?” Indeed, I do. The issue was well litigated yesterday.
As to not understanding my earlier post, it is a not terribly oblique reference to Haye’s work lying (and its variants) have a “noble” justification. And, in his case particularly, that’s a justification which is clearly engaged with frequency.
How long would this country last if the Treasury was overflowing but all the citizens were in poverty from trying to get health care? How could a consumer society make it if the population it depends on has no money to spend because it all went to doctors?
That’s what you are advocating. What difference to the economy would it make if the government coffers were flush and the population was broke?
Scott C. said: “As Margaret Thatcher famously said, socialism does not work because eventually you run out of other people’s money.”
Cliches, though they might tickle your fancy, tend to avoid thinking rather than enhance it. Take another classic, “A liberal is just a conservative who has been mugged by another conservative.”
As regards the “workability” of government-managed healthcare systems, perhaps you’d like to address the questions I put to another above…
@Ayers for Senate – I suspect we’d agree that providing choices allows consumers to sort out what they find optimal or best or satisfactory and then they will demonstrate a predictable loyalty to the choice they’ve found agreeable. That is, after all, the fundamental rationale supporting freedom of enterprise and freedom of choice.
As it happens, the US is unique among western nations in not having some form of government-managed health program (except Medicaire, of course, which seniors find very agreeable). It is also the case than in not a single one of those other nations have the voters (healthcare program consumers) moved to support or elect a political party who campaigns on a platform of returning to a system such as the US now has. How does this broad and universal choice to keep their systems fit into your thinking?
@Bernie Latham….
Thanks for the John Dewey quote. No doubt business has a much better PR system than the citizens. Also thanks for your 9:58AM response to the wingut Ayers.
I wish more Canadians…or former Canadians would set the record straight. As I mentioned in an earlier post during the Hillarycare debate I interviewed dozens of foreigners and Canadians….yes I realize Canadians are foreigners but they seem to merit their own subset…NONE of these people agreed with the widely held American perceptions held about healthcare outside of America. That was a true eye opener for me!
When disgraceful politicians like Missouri’s Roy Blunt continue to peddle lies saying..”I’m 59 and if I needed a hip replacement in Canada or England I wouldn’t get one” and then confronted by his hometown newspaper with the GLARING innaccuracy of his remarks said…”Well I don’t just mke this stuff up”…something is deeply wrong with our nation. Blunt should either resign for incompetence being so INCREDIBLY ignorant about such an important issue or because he is a paid stoooge of the insurance industry…more concerned about United, Cigna, Aetna, Blue Cross’ bottom line than the health of his constituents. The Republicans have lost their soul…why not run the fictional Gordon Gecko for office because it’s obvious the Repub’s believe ‘Greed is good”!
“it’s obvious the Repub’s believe ‘Greed is good””
Well duh.
And it’s not just Repugs – look at the Libetarians, too.
Libertarians – damn rented finners.
“By the way, somebody asked why we don’t try a public option first and see how it goes. We already have, its called Medicare and yeah, it works.”
No it doesn’t – ask Obama.
“No it doesn’t – ask Obama.”
O for god’s sake – you are ridiculous. You will seize on the slightest slip of tongue and claim that’s the main thing that has been said.
I don’t care what Obama said – I”m saying it – medicare works.
@rukidding – Canadian voices aren’t heard as a consequence of two factors, I think. First, the news media has been doing a typically pathetic job of real reporting. It’s far easier and cheaper to merely throw high-profile faces up on the screen (many of whom have no valid reason to be there other than personal ambition or as propagandists) or to take dictation from interested parties clamoring for those same reasons. That’s a bit over-broad, of course, but it is much of what we get here. Obviously, good reporting/coverage of anywhere/everywhere in the west outside of the US ought to be one of the first information pursuits these people ought to be following.
As you may know, the Brits too have been rather bemused by the falsehoods pushed forward in the media here by all the various interest groups and front groups involved in trying to frighten american citizens. The Guardian has been helpful in disseminating such voices.
There seems to me to be another fundamental aspect here aside from media failures and massive corporate propaganda campaigns. That other factor is America’s odd but very real insularity within its own mythic conceptions of itself.
@tena: Simple question: Why not fix Medicare first?
Bernie Latham:
“I’ve been in the US for six years (married a pretty Texan) after 55 years in Canada. There, I invested less than $100 a month for daughter and self and enjoyed excellent care through that full period. Waits for service not different from what I’ve found here. Could change my doctor any time I wanted or use many if I would have thought that better. But if a wait time arises, one can throw in some extra money above the monthly and get that service sooner. I never had to do that nor have any of my family.”
Then your personal solution seems perfectly obvious…go back to Canada.
Tena: “I went through both my parents’ final illnsses and deaths with them and without Medicare I’d be bankrupt.”
If you would have gone bankrupt, that means by definition that someone else paid for you. You are correct…that is great for you. Not so much for the person who had to pay. And certainly not sustainable across the entire population. A free lunch is not possible for everyone. Someone must pay.
Tena: “You characterize it as some people getting some care? That ain’t how it works – everyone who qualified is cared for
Doesn’t that, by implication, mean that everyone who doesn’t qualify doesn’t get the care? And if some people so qualify, and some people don’t, doesn’t that mean that I was exactly correct, ie some people get care? To paraphrase you, er, that *is* how it works.
Tena: “My parents got too much attention from doctors.”
So someone else paid for unnecessary care. This simply substantiates my point that medicare has no rational way of allocating scarce resources.
@rukidding – just a quick note. You referred to “Ayers” as a wingnut. I’ll just point out that he made a good-faith effort at answering my question. That, rather than political leaning, seems to me to be the valuable criterion. But, I’m a pacifist.
I just saw Bilgeman’s post above. There’s a bad-faith effort. It’s why I and most everyone else ignore the chap/chapess.
Bernie L: “Indeed, I do [deny this}.”
I have linked to the Hayes post which proves that he did not do what Greg accused him of doing. If you do not accept this as proof that Greg was incorrect, then the concept of proof must have no meaning to you.
Bernie L: “The issue was well litigated yesterday.”
I agree. Indisputable proof has been presented that Greg was wrong. That is why I say he owes an apology.
Bernie L: “As regards the “workability” of government-managed healthcare systems, perhaps you’d like to address the questions I put to another above…
Sure. Ask away.
hey scott
“you would have gone bankrupt, that means by definition that someone else paid for you.”
you mean like everyone who paid for those paragons of private frigging “enterprises” like aig, investment bankers, automobile makers.
These greedy banks and corporations, who screw you over & over again and yet you wingnuts are so bounden to them. pathetic.
Most Don’t Know What “Public Option” Means
…This is mostly a debate being had among policy elites and the relatively small fraction of the public that is highly knowledgeable and engaged about health care reform; for most others, the details are lost on them.”
Hat tip, TPM.
@Scott C. – “Sure. Ask away.”
Uh, I did. It’s in the same post you just addressed.
“Why not fix Medicare first?”
What’s to fix? It ain’t broken.
Look, use your head for a change – the government could raise taxes across the board and every one of us would still save thousands of dollars in health care costs – a raise in taxes is NOTHING compared to the cost of health care in this country.
My mother’s last illness cost $400,000. They could raise my taxes over a thousand dollars a year and I still wouldnt’ live long enough to lost money on it compared to what it cost.
Goddamn it – y’all are beyond blind here.
Bernie L you have more patience and kindness than me and I respect you for it. You are correct in your assertion that calling Ayers a wingnut doesn’t advance the conversation. It drops me into that category of thoughtlessness of BILGEman. At least he has correctly identified his post as bilge.
It’s a shame I feel the need to point out that I am a Vietnam Vet who actually volunteered to go despite the opporunity to Bush out in the National Guard and consider myself somebody who LOVES this country and calls myself a patriot. It doesn’t mean I can’t see the flaws and you Bernie L have stated one of our most destuctive flaws quite articulately…”There seems to me to be another fundamental aspect here aside from media failures and massive corporate propaganda campaigns. That other factor is America’s odd but very real insularity within its own mythic conceptions of itself.” Which is a very kind way of stating we can be such arrogant, xenophobic…horses rears.
amk: “you mean like everyone who paid for those paragons of private frigging “enterprises” like aig, investment bankers, automobile makers.”
Yes, I mean precisely like that.
scott. so you do accept then the private insurers will fail too in the same way ? Good. Then why are you shilling for them then ?
@rukidding – America isn’t alone in this, of course. We Canadians, for example, may be just a little too proud of not being proud. But more to the point, the sort of myopia that arises from certain sorts of nationalist mythic conceptions tends to be magnified in nations who are dominant. The Brits were serious arseholes in this respect and there are many such precedents. I’ve previously mentioned Anatol Lieven’s book “America – Right or Wrong” (Oxord University Press). I suspect you’d like it a lot.
@tena: “What’s to fix (Medicare)? It ain’t broken.”
You are living on some planet other than earth.
The growth in Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security is unsustainable. Everyone (but you?) agrees on that. This means either benefit cuts or increased taxes, as you acknowledge. Obama promised that he would not raise my taxes, and there simply aren’t enough wealthy (like you) to sustain the current path.
Obama proposes a bunch of fixes to Medicare that he says could save billions right now – well, what are we waiting for? If we can fix Medicare then prove it: fix Medicare first.
“The growth in Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security is unsustainable. Everyone (but you?) agrees on that. T”
No, the Repugs claim this all the time and it’s not so – it’s your constant mantra. If we reform the system, this is irrelevant. There’s no point in fixing anything piecemeal, cause we won’t be saving the money we can save as a country if we do this all together.
sbj – look, the last time I went to Europe, I went in a group – there were over a hundred of us. Consequently, my trip – 10 days – cost $3500 for everything – everything. If I had booked and taken that trip on my own it would have cost over twice as much because I wouldn’t have had the bargaining power of over a hundred people.
Pick that up and move it to healthcare -
@sbj – “If we can fix Medicare then prove it: fix Medicare first.”
Sounds like a theoretical exercise in organizational systems. There are, after all, the many millions of uninsured elsewhere. A moral issue here, perhaps? It’s rather as if you propose to your wife that because the front porch of your house is falling into the canyon that there’s a good reason to take care of that matter. But she isn’t sure you have what it takes to fix the matter so she suggests you prove it first by patching a hole in the bathroom wall.
@bernie:
And if I “fix” the front porch and my “wife” tries it out and it breaks and she falls to her death in the canyon?
@tena: “No, the Repugs claim this all the time and it’s not so – it’s your constant mantra.”
It’s the OMB and it’s Obama!
@sbj – “And if I “fix” the front porch and my “wife” tries it out and it breaks and she falls to her death in the canyon?”
Get another. I did.
@tena: You seem to forget that the OMB has analyzed a plan that does just what you propose – and it has found that said plan makes the long term budget problems worse. It INCREASES Federal spending on healthcare and it makes the current unsustainable growth even worse. This inevitably results in a benefits cut or increased taxes (or both) – and there simply aren’t enough wealthy, such as yourself – to pay for everything.
Bernie L: “Uh, I did…”
Sorry, I thought you were addressing Ayers there.
“I suspect we’d agree that providing choices allows consumers to sort out what they find optimal or best or satisfactory and then they will demonstrate a predictable loyalty to the choice they’ve found agreeable. That is, after all, the fundamental rationale supporting freedom of enterprise and freedom of choice.”
Well, yes and no. Giving people the choice to force someone else to pay for them precludes the other from choosing not to pay. Free enterprise and free choice presumes that all interactions are voluntary. Socialized anything is, by definition, not voluntary.
“It is also the case than in not a single one of those other nations have the voters (healthcare program consumers) moved to support or elect a political party who campaigns on a platform of returning to a system such as the US now has. How does this broad and universal choice to keep their systems fit into your thinking?”
Well, in a democracy, especially one without an enforced bill of individual rights, if a majority of people think they will get a free lunch at someone else’s expense, they will be able to vote that free lunch in. If, in fact, a majority of people do get a free lunch at the expense of a minority, the minority is, in a word, screwed.
It is also the case that in most places with socialized medicine, it has been that way for most, if not all, of their lives. They are used to it, they are used to dealing with the problems it presents, and they essentially accept it for what it is. In a word, as I am sure you will agree, people fear change. The devil you know, and all that. Undoubtedly it is this very same fear, not any keen philosophical and economic analysis, that underlies much of the “grass roots” opposition to Obamacare.
@sbj – wasn’t your porch gone in the first place since you let your beloved insurance company fix it ?
@amk: Personally, my family LOVES the health insurance we currently have (Kaiser Permanente). I have a great plan – it costs quite a bit, but I wouldn’t change it for the world.
You DO realize that most people both have health insurance and are happy with their current healthcare? In other words, most of us are happy with our porches and they are in fine shape.
@sbj – If you’re so happy with your current health insurance, then why are you so scared of “obamacare” ? Is he threatening to take away your “perfect’ health insurance ?
amk: “so you do accept then the private insurers will fail too in the same way ?”
Fail in the same way as what? I don’t know what you are talking about. All I did was agree that in both the example that Tena gave and the examples you provided (GM, AIG, etc.) someone besides the beneficiary was paying.
scott
yeah, you know like that thatcherite cliche you are so fond of quoting.
And no, you still haven’t answered any of the issues I raised with a typical repug way of dodging the issue.
@amk: “If you’re so happy with your current health insurance, then why are you so scared of “obamacare” ? Is he threatening to take away your “perfect’ health insurance?”
Um, no, but my company could choose to stop providing that plan because paying the penalty would be cheaper, or my plan might not meet the requirements of Obamacare and would no longer be eligible. If you don’t understand that then you shouldn’t really be playing this game.
@Scott C. – thanks
“Well, yes and no. Giving people the choice to force someone else to pay for them precludes the other from choosing not to pay. Free enterprise and free choice presumes that all interactions are voluntary. Socialized anything is, by definition, not voluntary.”
This is not terribly coherent. What capacity do you have now to choose not to pay for the fire department of the policing of your community or for your municipal government to verify that the engineering on the bridge you and your children drive across each day come up to standard or for matters of national defence? You are precluded from choosing not to pay for these things. This constitutes a problem for you? We make these decisions as a consequence of majority consensus.
” Well, in a democracy, especially one without an enforced bill of individual rights, if a majority of people think they will get a free lunch at someone else’s expense, they will be able to vote that free lunch in. If, in fact, a majority of people do get a free lunch at the expense of a minority, the minority is, in a word, screwed.”
Minorities are always “screwed”. It is the nature of decision-making by majority vote. If a majority of Americans come to the consensus that women and blacks deserve to be able to participate in elections, those who disagree will be “screwed”. If the city decides that everyone ought to contribute to the cost of wheel-chair ramps into public buildings, then those who can walk upright will be “screwed”.
“It is also the case that in most places with socialized medicine, it has been that way for most, if not all, of their lives. They are used to it, they are used to dealing with the problems it presents, and they essentially accept it for what it is. In a word, as I am sure you will agree, people fear change. The devil you know, and all that. Undoubtedly it is this very same fear, not any keen philosophical and economic analysis, that underlies much of the “grass roots” opposition to Obamacare.”
People do fear change. But change does happen and broad consensus shift is common (civil rights, workplace safety, pollution regs, etc etc) But I think we might point out that where there seems to be an absence of desire or call for change (we want to keep our fire departments) then you aren’t primarily dealing with ‘fear of change’ but something more properly understood as consumer satisfaction.
Let me put this question to you. If it happened that in Canada the citizens did change consensus and decided, by majority, to move to an American style system, would you consider this outcome acceptable? Second question…if America, by consensus vote, decided to change to a government-managed system, would you find that acceptable? Are your answers here consistent?
@sbj – ha. So you agree that your insurance company is your death panel. Thanks for playing. ciao.
amk: “And no, you still haven’t answered any of the issues I raised…”
The haze of incoherence that surrounds your posts prevents me from recognizing any sensible issue that can be addressed. Sorry.
scott
yeah, I am sure you can neither understand nor address.
Bernie Latham:
“I just saw Bilgeman’s post above. There’s a bad-faith effort. It’s why I and most everyone else ignore the chap/chapess.”
It’s “chap”…and wour wilful ignorance is YOUR loss.
Let’s revisit your assertion:
““I’ve been in the US for six years (married a pretty Texan) after 55 years in Canada. There, I invested less than $100 a month for daughter and self and enjoyed excellent care through that full period.”
If their system is so swell, then why don’t they open it up so that even non-Canadians can buy in, say at slightly higher rates than Canadians pay, to offset the difference?
A succesful business model is a succesful business model, no matter where it’s practiced.
McDonald’s and Coca-Cola and Philip Morris sell their products across the world, with subsidies from no-one.
So if “Care,Eh?” (or whatever you call it up there), is so swell, why aren’t you still in it?
Feel free to call me a troglodyte and then decline to answer in any substantive way…it’s all about that “honesty and integrity” with you, after all.
@bilgeman – you sure chose an apt handle.
Tena:
“Let me tell you something = Medicare is the best thing since oxygen. I went through both my parents’ final illnsses and deaths with them and without Medicare I’d be bankrupt.”
Heavens forbid…a lawyer going bankrupt?
“My mother’s last illness cost $400,000. They could raise my taxes over a thousand dollars a year and I still wouldnt’ live long enough to lost money on it compared to what it cost.”
Yes. Tena will gladly let people who flip burgers and illegal aliens who pick lettuce for a living pony up for the cost of her mother’s terminal care. She’s so gracious that she’ll even agree to match the share paid by the day-care provider.
Someone vote Tena “Philanthropist Lawyer of the Year”!
“I don’t care what Obama said – I”m saying it – medicare works.”
It rather obviously worked for you…
Another rich over-misedumacated sh*theel looking for a subsidy from the dinner tables of working people in the name of “compassion”…
rukidding:
“It’s a shame I feel the need to point out that I am a Vietnam Vet who actually volunteered to go despite the opporunity to Bush out in the National Guard and consider myself somebody who LOVES this country and calls myself a patriot.”
Just out of curiosity, why DO you feel the need?
The only relevance to the issue at hand would be if you were going to comment on the care your fellow Viet Nam vets receive in the government-run VA hospital system.
Bernie L: “What capacity do you have now to choose not to pay for the fire department of the policing of your community or for your municipal government to verify that the engineering on the bridge you and your children drive across each day come up to standard or for matters of national defence?”
You are quite correct. I am precluded from not paying for all sorts of things. The raison d’etre of government is to be coercive. If something can be done non-coercively, there is no need to involve the government. The thing is, I think coercion, particularly non-retaliatory coercion, is generally a bad thing. I much prefer voluntary associations and interactions among and between people. That is why I prefer free enterprise to socialism. And that is also why, to the extent that government does initiate coercion to accomplish some particular ends, I want it to do so at the lowest level of government possible, so as to provide people with the choice of escaping the coercion if they desire, or designing it in a way that is least offensive to them. If Massachusetts, or California want to dabble with socialized medicine, that is certainly preferable to having the federal government do so. Preferable still would be to have even smaller localities do so. But as government action is expanded to a higher and higher level, it becomes (by design) more and more difficult to escape, and hence easier for a majority to unjustly exploit an offended minority. And, obviously, choices become fewer and fewer for everyone.
Stated more succinctly, I like freedom, and I want to maximize it, not minimize it.
“Minorities are always “screwed”.”
This is not true, at least in the US. Our Constitution was designed precisely so that minorities were not always screwed.
“But I think we might point out that where there seems to be an absence of desire or call for change (we want to keep our fire departments) then you aren’t primarily dealing with ‘fear of change’ but something more properly understood as consumer satisfaction.”
I lived in the UK for 7 years. I rarely met anyone who wanted to do away with the NHS, but it was just as rare to find anyone who was satisfied with it. For some reason there is a reluctance to accept that the widely recognized and despised problems with the NHS are a very function of the design of the system. There is an illusion, both fostered and exploited by politicians who want to get elected, that the NHS can be fixed without altering the means by which care is paid for. The illusion continues, as does the dreadful state of the NHS.
“If it happened that in Canada the citizens did change consensus and decided, by majority, to move to an American style system, would you consider this outcome acceptable?”
I don’t particularly care what Canadians do, but I would certainly understand their decision.
“if America, by consensus vote, decided to change to a government-managed system, would you find that acceptable?”
Absolutely not. I would dread it.
“Are your answers here consistent?”
Sure. In both instances I recognize that socialized medicine is an abomination.
Bernie L.:
I already addressed this point, but perhaps I can do so in a better way, to help you see why your approach to the question is in error. You asked:
“If it happened that in Canada the citizens did change consensus and decided, by majority, to move to an American style system, would you consider this outcome acceptable? Second question…if America, by consensus vote, decided to change to a government-managed system, would you find that acceptable? Are your answers here consistent?”
Do you find it acceptable that Americans have passed laws prohibiting slavery of any class of people? Would you find it acceptable if Canadians passed laws allowing slavery of a certain class of people? Are your answers consistent?
As you should see, the fact that a majority has decided something has no necessary connection to whether it is acceptable or not.
Stated more succinctly, I like freedom, and I want to maximize it, not minimize it.
Except that at the end of the day, this inevitably turns out to actually be a disguise for:
I’ve got mine. The rest of you can go to hell.
Galbraith said it more graciously (if less succinctly):
oddjob: “Except that at the end of the day, this inevitably turns out to actually be a disguise for: I’ve got mine. The rest of you can go to hell.”
Not at all. A desire to allocate one’s own resources in a manner of one’s own choosing in no way whatsoever implies telling everyone else to go to hell. One may very easily choose to allocate those resources to complete strangers for wholly altruistic reasons. In fact, most people who are in a position to allocate significant resources to charities and the like generally do so to a large extent. Charitable giving in the US is much greater than it is in socialist countries.
(quoting Galbraith): “The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.”
And Galbraith was engaged himself in an exercise of mendacity, trying to convince us that taking and spending other people’s money is somehow an act of goodness.
But let me get this straight. If I don’t want to spend my resources on you, I am selfish. But if you want to spend my resources on yourself, you are not being selfish.. How does that work?
Usual libertarian bullshit.
Yawn………
When you realize you’re deluding yourself about how wonderful the world would be if only we all could do whatever our hearts desired free of the responsibilities of living in proximity to others, get back to us.
Until then you have nothing of value to say.
oddjob: “When you realize you’re deluding yourself about how wonderful the world would be if only we all could do whatever our hearts desired free of the responsibilities of living in proximity to others…”
I haven’t said anything about the world being wonderful under any circumstances. Nor did I say anything about being free from responsiblities. You are arguing against the imaginations of your own mind.
@bilgeman…I felt the need to identify myself as a Vietnam Vet and a self proclaimed patriot who loves his country because any utterance of a fault of our wonderful nation brings such a torrent of abuse from you wingnuts.
I don’t wish to be accused of “apologizing”..omg heaven forbid! To apologize for a wrong is…well it’s certainly not in the vocabulary of the right. But that’s just it isn’t..the right always assumes it is right. Just ask your heroine Sarah. If an individual behaved the way our nation has in many instances..they would be the LAST person you’d want to have as a neighbor.
rukidding:
“I felt the need to identify myself as a Vietnam Vet and a self proclaimed patriot who loves his country because any utterance of a fault of our wonderful nation brings such a torrent of abuse from you wingnuts.”
Have I abused you?
“I don’t wish to be accused of “apologizing”..omg heaven forbid! To apologize for a wrong is…well it’s certainly not in the vocabulary of the right. But that’s just it isn’t..the right always assumes it is right.”
It’s perfectly okay if you apologize for something you personally have done or failed to do. In fact, that’s highly laudable, and in many faiths, it’s a Sacrament.
What is not okay is apologizing for what you think are the wrongs committed or omitted by OTHER people.
You don’t gain redemption by confessing to OTHER peoples’ sins.
You should worry about your own wrongdoing.
“Just ask your heroine Sarah.”
Newsflash, ace, I didn’t vote for her, either.
(Who’s abusing whom now? Don’t you owe me an apology?)
“If an individual behaved the way our nation has in many instances..they would be the LAST person you’d want to have as a neighbor.”
Did you have a point to all this?
You are arguing against the imaginations of your own mind.
I very much doubt that, and I very much doubt most of the others who read this blog will buy your blather, either.
Libertarianism is always the same, a creed that only works in the imaginations of the foolishly selfish.
If even Rasmussen says that there is overwhelming support for the public option, then there IS overwhelming support for the public option. If there were any way to have spun the results to show opposition, Rasmussen would have done it.
omg, this is Pelosi telling Steny to STFU
Every poll I have seen shows the overwhelming majority against the current reform plan and the town hall meeting I attended was the same, but what those who support it are missing is the facts about what effects the reform bill will really have. Read the HR Bill and see if you can still support it. I don’t think anyone is opposed to real healthcare reform, but this bill isn’t it. It’s not even close! There are too many caught up with the idea that controling or even eliminating insurance will create some miracle, but there is nothing that addresses all the things that actually create the rising cost of healthcare. We all love to hate insurance companies, but taking them over will only be a huge expense with no return.