As entrepreneurs we are as focussed as any individual or organization on the bottom line. It's a pure and simple fact of survival as a businessperson that we must make money to stay alive. As President Obama presented his healthcare case to Congress and the American people, I had a sudden epiphany about the whole debate. And believe me, it is of major concern to all of us in terms of the United States remaining a leader in the world. As our politicians, media, and the general public spew more vitriolic and mean-spirited barbs because of their selfish positions on health care as a private vs. public matter, I sit dejectedly with my thoughts that we, as a nation, are too divided at this critical time.
As a therapist who works with families and couples, I see the creases of concern on their faces when the mention of healthcare costs come up, including my fees. I'll work with all of my clients to meet their financial limitations just to do the work at this difficult time. While I'm not a complete soft-hearted mamby-pamby, I cannot turn away clients who are hurting and struggling financially because everyone deserves to have hope. If there were a true public healthcare option, similar to Medicaid or Medicare, my clients would get my counseling expertise, and the government would pay me. I would love to get a check from Old Uncle Sam, instead of paying one each April!
A Public Option. What would that really look like? Well, for one thing, it would take the pressure off of entrepreneurs like us to have a "sick day" fund, or carry the ridiculously named "disaster" insurance policy. There would be a large pool of money from our taxes that would pay for medical care. Not insurance against getting sick or hurt. Imagine if you could apply all of your energies and talents doing what you love, without the health expense albatross around your neck? Why is that France, Germany, the UK, Australia, and many other developed countries have this figured out, and we're still fighting about it?
I have a number of friends who are big fans of free enterprise. So am I. However, I argue that we have too many hard-nosed capitalists who think that the free market methodologies provide a platform for them to get as wealthy as possible, irrespective of the hurt they perpetrate on others (Bernie Madoff is the favorite whipping boy in this category, but the list is quite long). Now, here's the kicker.
If you happened to be a titan of the health insurance industry in this country, your raison d'etre is to maximize shareholder value. To maximize shareholder value, you must maximize premiums, and minimize costs to make a healthy profit each quarter, and return shareholder value. As the President told us, that imperative drives insurance companies to deny coverage to the sicker persons in our society, while keeping as many healthy folks on their rolls. Drop coverage for the guy with lung cancer, and keep increasing the costs for those who stay healthy and vibrant.
On the other side, Ted Kennedy stated the best reason to endorse a massive change in our health care system. "It's only fair to all Americans to have the kind of healthcare I have, especially if they cannot afford it." Kennedy was a wonderful man in terms of his generosity of spirit in recognizing his great fortune, while still championing the needs of the struggling. Well, it's a struggle for my family to pay insurance premiums of over $1,000 each month. We're not doing too badly either. Still, we're willing to do what it takes to cover the needs of the many who are one health emergency from personal disaster. It's just not right for hard-working entrepreneurs or others to face this dilemma.
So, my friends, stay hungry for that big contract, order, or paycheck, but don't lose your humanity over the chase for riches. I cringe when I hear someone say at a Biznik function that making as much money as possible is objective #1. How about making enough for you and yours, while keeping a small slice for helping a friend, neighbor, or colleague? I believe that capitalism with compassion i more important now than ever. Let's show the way.
Learn more about the author, Matthew Gittleman.
Right on! As a moral and responsible capitalist, I couldn't agree more.
Uncontrolled capitalism brings out the worst behavior in greedy, selfish people. Uncontrolled capitalists are sharks in a feeding frenzy. The economic debacle we are experiencing is adequate proof of the point.
I would also like to point out that free enterprise is more a theoretical concept and rhetorical tool of greedy capitalists than an actuality in our thoroughly manipulated economy.
I disagree............government is not compassionate...it isn't human........it isn't a living entity capable of reasoning and compassion...it is a tool used by the most corrupt among us to satisfy their own greed for power and money. My local city just cut 6 health care programs run by our local government....where do you think the cutbacks will come from when they need to save money to spend on their pet projects? The sick...the needy....the elderly!
They know what reform needs to take place, they won't do it because it requires them to limit the power of their fellow lawyers and it doesn't give them more power over the people,,, it doesn't ask us to surrender yet more of our personal power to choose over to them.
There isn't one government run program that isn't going bankrupt! Not one!!!!!! We'll all have health insurance....but we sure as hell won't be receiving any treatment!
@Julie: And you believe that corporations are compassionate and human? "The most corrupt among us" are the corporations and their officers who deify profit and sacrifice people for their personal gain, the health insurance industry being one of the most obvious examples.
You should get angry at the corporations that have done a pretty good job of taking control of the government that is supposed to belong to the people. In our system, big money rules (oligarchy) and everybody else is expected to acquiesce to the take over.
And, to be consistent, you should renounce all those socialist government programs like fire, police, military, roads, sewers, water systems, etc., etc., etc. Health care is a common good, not a commodity that only the rich and well connected can afford.
Corporate corruptions pales in comparison to the people in D.C.! Absolutely!
@Julie: I'll just pose one more question. Who owns Congress? The people? Or the corporations whose bidding they do in exchange for the money they need to get elected?
I can understand your anger; I'm angry too. I just think that you are directing yours at the puppets rather than the puppeteers.
those with the money own congress.....special interests, the people need to organize and become a "special interest" group with the power to pay for and own congress.
Remember this.................Dependency is a form of slavery!
One interesting fact is that the large corporate interest groups have funded and directed smaller groups to 'educate' and instigate popular opposition to healthcare reform.
It's actually true that the people are able to drive congressional action. The problem is that we the people all-too-often are all-too-easily influenced to agitate against our own interests and in favor of the interests of others who prefer to remain nameless.
I must say that the the people of Canada, France and Switzerland seem neither to be dependent nor enslaved. (I won't go that far in my assessment of the British, but I could be convinced.)
@ Julie: Cooperation is a sort of dependency. Family implies a sort of dependency. So, I think your statement is a bit broad.
But, in keeping with your message, I have to say that we depend totally on corporations that have created the current economic collapse, ruined the health care system, polluted our environment, manufactured frankenfood, sold it to the most overweight nation in the world and killed people on both sides of wars intended to protect corporate financial interests, not freedom and democracy. I could go on. We are co-dependent with corporations (the puppeteers), not government (the puppets).
@John: I couldn't be convinced about the UK.
@ John: I appreciate your perspective on the influence peddling that corporations have engaged in "buying" Congress. The tenor of my article was most likely wishful thinking. I completely agree with Julie that our government is not functioning properly. The narrow interests of Congresspersons , as evidenced by their disposition towards a vital program like a public healthcare option, shows the power of outside corporate interest to own these "puppets." What saddens me is all the anger and fear residing in the souls of our fellow citizens. A president once promised "compassionate conservatism," and proceeded to give tax breaks to the largest energy companies, financial institutions, and wealthiest individuals in our country. Is it any wonder that there is tremendous cynicism towards our government? What I cannot understand is all the vitriol spewed towards Obama, who is only saying that he wants to level the playing field, and give financial relief to those who most need it!?
The core issues of health care are so basic. The only thing standing in the way of creating a system to provide what people really need is the insurance industry's fear of becoming irrelevant.
Every other roadblock stems from this one issue.
Without a massive paradigm shift, nothing is going to really change – it's merely going to "adjust" a little.
Think about it on the most basic level. What might health care look like in an ideal world?
First, you would simply go straight to your own doctor or hospital and just get the treatment you need.
The only people deciding on your course of treatment would be you and the medical staff. Period.
Then there's cost. Of course doctors and hospitals should make money for the services they provide.
I strongly believe the costs for those services would be significantly reduced if the insurance industry was out of the picture.
So how do you pay for it? If you can't afford it, how do you get help to pay for it?
I think France has the closest solution. Tax rates are huge in France, but I understand that every citizen has 70% of their medical costs covered. They are responsible for the other 30%.
It's not perfect, but it beats paying a third party "just in case" you need treatment at some point.
My family does not currently have health insurance. We take good care of ourselves and only visit a doctor when there's something we can't handle on our own (a chronic problem or some kind of trauma).
If we paid a premium over the course of the year, that's $12,000 gone. Just gone, with nothing to show for it.
And even with that paid, we would still be responsible for certain costs of our care.
How could I feel more secure paying that premium when I know that if something did happen there's an anonymous agent deciding if the treatment is something the company will pay for?
And, if it's a long-term illness, there are limits on how much it will cover. So for our family, what's the difference between a $1,000,000 medical bill and a $100,000 medical bill?
None. They both wipe us out.
At least with a hospital or doctor-based payment plan, the money is going directly to the source of treatment.
For a lot of people, deleting the entire insurance industry is a hard pill to swallow.
There are jobs and other economic ramifications to be considered. Granted, it's become a huge part of our country's economy.
So was the auto industry. Ahem.
I don't want to see those people lose their jobs. Then again, how many people work for those companies because it's simply the biggest employer in their area?
Again, the auto industry comes to mind.
In addition, I have people close to me who have taken jobs because they "need the health insurance."
Making a career decision based on your medical issues?That's scary.
I don't agree with that solution, but I can understand how someone could make that decision out of fear.
It shouldn't have to be that way.
As a country, we're only as strong as the individual citizens. The government is only as powerful as we allow it to be.
The solution to the health care issue starts with us.
If you're healthy (no chronic or debilitating illness), cancel your insurance. Save your money. Put it somewhere so it earns interest.
We have to shift our thinking on more than one level. Taking care of a family is hard. From what I hear and read, finding a job right now is really hard, too.
We need to start relying on each other more to get through difficult periods. If you know someone out of work, make it part of your day to help them find work until they do.
If you know someone without health insurance who has a major illness, there has to be a way to help them. Not just money, but what about time?
Can you spend 3 hours a day caring for someone in their home so their family doesn't have to hire a nurse?
Can you help pay for your neighbor's insulin shots until they get on their feet? Maybe a group of people can contribute?
If you donate money to charities, maybe consider putting one of those donations towards someone right in your community who needs immediate help?
There are ways to get off the insurance train but we need to be more creative.
Some people have told me that I don't understand the complexities involved, or the economics.
I call bullshit. That's what adults say when they don't have an explanation that a child can understand.
We've made this a complex issue. The solutions are simple, but they are just very hard.
When did we start expecting everything to be easy or without personal sacrifice?
YEAH! It's time to start paying for medical treatment, not an insurance premium in case we get sick! You totally got the gist of my message.. thanks!
@Matthew: As an ex-Federal employee (National Park Service and Bureau of Land Management), I have plenty of experience with those who blame "Government" for their problems. The people and corporations who own government play both sides against citizens caught in the middle. It's a classic diversionary tactic used to keep people from finding and looking closely at the real sources of their problems.
If corporations can get Congress to give them the special favors and protections that loot the treasury, subvert the Constitution and the interests of the people and then turn around and use propaganda (read lies) to get the people to blame the government, they have managed to hide their duplicitous and nefarious deeds from an ignorant and scared population that exhibits the signs and symptoms of ADD. Most Americans don't read history and have very short attention spans and memories. When does the game start and where's the beer?
I'm sorry, but more government, bigger government is not the solution. Government's current regulation of the insurance industry prevents competition between the companies. How is more regulation going to make anything better.
If you do some research you'll find the profit margin of the insurance companies is among the lowest. It's in the single digits!
Making something sound warm and fuzzy doesn't make it warm and fuzzy. There are solutions to this that don't involve more government control. Why not ask yourself why they won't pursue this avenue?
You say as businesses you'll save money....but where do you think the money for this program comes from?
The founders of this nation had a healthy suspicion of government, specifically the Federal level, and we should also. Give the power back to the states and they can take care of their own citizens.
The federal gov. is a machine with out feelings, with out compassion, without the capability of reason. I don't want that machine making decisions affecting my life, any part of my life.
@Julie: Profits after paying for a massive bureaucracy duplicated by each insurance company, high salaries for the boss class, marketing flim-flam and other costs of doing business, the actual margin is irrelevant.
Insurance companies have perverted the whole concept underlying their business-shared risk. When the objective is to eliminate business risk to insure profits and big salaries, then you charge big premiums and insure mostly only the healthy. That way you can give the impression that you are serving a high and mighty public purpose (shared risk) while leaving massive numbers un or under insured.
"States rights" is code for abandoning all control to the worst elements of the human character. It's also code for abandoning the Bill of Rights.
Substitute "The corporate world" for "The federal gov" in your last paragraph and I can agree with you completely on that point, at least.
You know what? Insurance companies, like you and every other business owner, are in business to make a profit, otherwise, where is the incentive? Check out the numbers on the profit margin of congress...........it's absolutely astounding. If making a profit is so evil......why don't you offer your service for free?
@Julie: I haven't said one word against profit, per se. I am a moral capitalist, meaning that I don't seek out or claim excessive or predatory profit and I don't take advantage of people to make a living. This country is dominated by people and corporations that seek profit at all costs with no concern for anybody but themselves and their stock holders.
Congress has no profit margin. Of course it's common for corporate interests to bribe Congress by funneling massive amounts of money to election campaigns while expecting and sometimes getting special favors. Again, you mistake the puppet for the puppeteers. You mistake effect for cause.
Money talks. Big money shouts so loudly and so often that it controls the propaganda that tells the masses of ADD affected people what to believe. Thinking is not an activity of people who are scared. Reactionary mobs aren't practicing democracy.
I don't see how corporate greed makes a case for government control of health care.
There is an old rule: When what you're doing doesn't work, do anything else. Add to that: The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again that has never worked , expecting a different result. I might have misstated the last one a bit; but you get the idea.
Corporate greed makes a case for turning health care over to medical professionals and health care consumers, both current and future. Insurance companies only get in the way. Medical professionals should make reasonable profits or decent salaries by providing health care services to all citizens in need. Insurance companies aren't capable, as proven by our current situation, of focusing on health, when their corporate eyes are filled with visions of wealth. They are in the wealth building business, not the health care business. Having worked in both government and the insurance industry, it is my experience that government couldn't do worse than that industry.
still don't see how it makes the case for gov control of health care.
In my vision of a solution, everyone is taxed based on their income, if any, and the government runs something like Medicare, only better designed. They pay bills submitted by health care providers.
A single payer system supported by a shared risk pool of tax money collected from everyone is the answer. The only entity capable of doing this is government.
The only entity capable of waging war, moral or immoral war, is the government. Why don't we use the same model as the military industrial complex and wage war against ill health? The consequences would be life rather than death. An admirable and honorable outcome, eh?
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." Thomas Jefferson
I know I'll never convince you; and you must know you'll never convince me. But thanks for the opportunity to engage and get my thoughts out there to a larger audience.
Your use of a quote from Thomas Jefferson is a two edged sword in your argument and another rhetorical ploy. It's also a mixed bag of contradictions.
First: There was no such thing as a corporation at that time; I believe he would have said the same thing about rape and pillage corporations, had he been exposed to their extreme greed and lack of concern for the citizens of the newly minted US.
Or maybe not, because...
Second: Thomas Jefferson was a slave owner who believed that educated, well-to-do, land owning white people could own black people and gain economic benefit from their enslavement. He also didn't think much of the native people whose land he colluded to steal from its rightful owners. He looked down on his lessers kind of like the haves of today who look down on and marginalize the poor and uneducated class in our distinctly class society.
I see the light now. You too hate America, and its founders, just like most progressives, socialists, communists etc.... a self loathing American white male. Got it!
One thing to remember........the witch hunt won't stop with those you oppose.........when it comes to your door and there is no one left to stand up for you......then what?
Thanks for your article, Matthew. I think you're right, the insurance industry is flawed by design, and there IS incentive to insure the healthy and not the sick. This problem is an even bigger problem for employees who can't work because of a major illness, then lose their jobs and get dropped by their insurance.
However we do it (as a nation or as individuals), I think we've got to make a change to spending on health care instead of spending on insurance. But the big problem here is this: So much of how we do "medicine" in this country is controlled by capitalists who are not so compassionate - the pharmaceutical companies. Their mission is to keep as many people on medication for as long as possible, preferably, a lifetime. (And when the medication fails, no worries, there's an invasive and expensive surgery that can surely help.)
The real problem: preventative medicine just isn't profitable. And it doesn't matter WHO is going to pay for health care, if so-called "health care" that is really "sick care" that addresses symptoms and not causes, we'll be in worse shape financially than before, because there's no real incentive for the government to run health care like a responsible business. It'll be just like the military - a "business" that can spend whatever it without responsibility to shareholders, as there are none. (Just tax payers who pick up the tab.)
For years I took medication and underwent tests and treatments through three different doctors and clinics for an "incurable disease" but only got worse. When the last clinic started talking surgery, I decided to look further for my own solutions. Came to discover that the disease wasn't incurable at all, that's just what my MD docs believed. I made some simple lifestyle changes and have been medication free for 15 years. Incurable disease my ass.
ps - I mean no disprespect to our highly trained physicians who can be miracle workers. (Just found out my friend and surgeon-turned business coach George Huang saved another friend's thumb in reconstructive surgery after an accident 13 years ago!)
The health care industry is full of highly skilled people who care about their patients. I just don't think that the health care system has typically rewarded holistic and preventative solutions, or spent the energy into finding and implementing those solutions, because like corporations influence government, corporations influence how "medicine" is done and even how it is taught.
@Julie: When you have to fall back on reactionary, right wing epithets and name calling, you show the limits of your critique and argument.
If there is anyone out there who can engage in conversation without personal attacks, I would enjoy continuing the conversation.
Well falling back is what i do when someone plays the "slave owner" card.
So progressivism, socialism, and communism are all left of center.....and wanting a bigger government, nanny state, more government power over the people is a progressive, socialist, communist idea, which is left of center......that is an attack? So are you admitting that being left of center is a negative?
You can't say you're for capitalism, "but"....there is no but, you are either for free market or not. You're all for the government coming after a part of your community that you feel is wrong.....and then someone else wants the government to come after some other part of the community they feel is wrong....and eventually there is nobody left standing.
If you believe in capitalism, you believe in it for everyone, even the evil corporations. Preserving it for one and all.
This conversation is all quite entertaining, and for me unproductive and distracting. My position on the subject of healthcare reform, while tempered by a life of compassion, is based on two statistics that I can't get out of my head.
First, 70% of every dollar spent on healthcare is spent on a PREVENTABLE condition. In other words, the fastest way to reduce the cost of healthcare is to not need it at all. It seems to me that we should be talking more about "Health Reform" and preventing the need for care.
Second, 60% of every dollar spent on healthcare is spent in the last months of life. Doctor's are charged by professional oath and incented by fees for service to prolong life as long as possible. Our life expectancy is almost twice what it was only a few short generations ago. How much pain and suffering, as well as dollars could we save if more people had properly executed health directives like a Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) order?
So, I would love to see the general public, politicians, lobbyists, insurers, doctors, media and Bizniks focus the conversation on how we can incent Americans to be more healthy.
Whatever happened to the President's Council on Physical Fitness?
Does your use of the term "the slave owner card" imply that you think racism no longer exists and has no influence any more or just that it shouldn't be talked about or referenced?
My reference to Thomas Jefferson, the slave owner, was an effort to show that no one is perfect and without a dark side. Political, economic and social institutions that people create, such as capitalism, have their dark side, just like people. Are you unwilling to consider that capitalism isn't a perfect economic model?
Seeing and wanting to control the dark side isn't a total rejection of the concept; it's a recognition of its limitations and an attempt to make it work better.
In my almost 65 year lifetime "center" has been a moving target. When someone labels another as being leftist, that usually means left of them, leaving the center undefined. The civil rights movement was called leftist and communist by its opponents. Medicare is leftist; try convincing your grandparents and parents of that analysis. I am proud to be left of your position.
Capitalism is not an all or nothing deal. There are responsible, ethical capitalists and there are rape-and-pillage capitalists who act like god created capitalism and the gloves are off, devil take the hindmost. The "free market" doesn't exist unless you're referring to the totally uncontrolled greedfest that brought our current economic predicament.
Long live responsible, ethical capitalism! And until people become living saints, government controls will be required to control the rape-and-pillage capitalists.
@Berry: You are absolutely correct; this thread isn't going anywhere useful as long as Julie and I go at it.
Actually, this thread has been a mild version of the one that our Canadian member, Len Rosen, started three weeks ago.
If the discussion was only about how to design a health care system to give the best care to the most people at the lowest cost, I think it would be a much less polarized conversation. We could concentrate on what a quality system would look like and then we could figure out what we could afford and how we would pay for it.
Unfortunately, the political question of how the whole thing is to be financed has dominated the public discussion, so far.
Why not provide incentives for preventive healthcare? Pay people to take care of themselves.
Or would that just be too easy?
Preventative healthcare has got to be part on any system that makes any sense; keeping people healthy should be cheaper than treating them after they get sick.
However, preventative measures don't take care of the things that happen to those who eat right, exercise and refrain from smoking. Accidents and disease hit even the those trying hard to stay healthy.
And how do you keep people from eating too much unhealthy food? How do you get them to exercise? Do we use the carrot or the stick? Or both? I don't know the answer; but somehow people's self destructive behavior needs to change for prevention to work fully.
@John and Judy:
I'm glad to see such a robust discussion on this important issue, and was not surprised to see Julie exit with no dignity, as those on right often devolve into accusations and meanness (re: Joe Wilson) when their dogma is challenged. To the point of creating a "wellness care" option, I believe that the UK already had a workable program. Each person submits to a full physical and family history (of course there will always be deceit in this model), and are assigned a risk rating, based on their over-all score. Depending on that score, the newly created one-payer system will ascribe a certain pool of dollars to each and every legal citizen (No. Joe Wilson, there is no language in either the house or senate bill to pay for illegal immigrants, and even if they had the resources to buy care, there would be significant barriers to entry in the market system being discussed). Persons who are healthy, and engaged in living a healthy lifestyle would pay less into the system, and have a smaller "benefit," but would be covered for any emergencies. Persons who over-eat, smoke, drink excessively, would pay more into the system, and have a larger benefit allocated. The problem for this system, before you chime in, is that it penalizes the poor, who tend to exhibit terrible judgement in terms of their food choices and healthy lifestyle. They would have to submit to program, administered by state programs, employing the best nutritionists and personal trainers ( a la "Biggest Loser model), subsidized by business with more than 100 employees, with higher tariffs placed on the likes of McDonalds and Fatburger. And this system would only be available to those who want to drop their expensive healthcare insurance option to move into this program:)
Well, I like incentives. I like them better than punitive measures which treat adults like naughty children.
There's also a more profound spiritual question around why people engage in self-destructive behavior in the first place. Now that's a juicy discussion.
@David You said:
"I strongly believe the costs for those services would be significantly reduced if the insurance industry was out of the picture."
The fact of the matter is, this really isn't true. I've done a little digging into the actual financial reports of United HealthCare (the insurance company everyone loves to blast), and what I discovered is the following:
2008 Premiums Collected: $73.5 billion
2008 Insurance Claims Paid: $60 billion
That means 83% of all premiums were paid out to hospitals and doctors. Now I'm not sitting here defending the health care industry, but let's assume the US Government program could be run at the same 3% rate as Medicare. That means we only save 15% on our overall health care costs. And that 3% number doesn't count the fraud and corruption that goes on in Medicare (which would certainly appear in any government run program).
So with health care costs rising at over 6% a year (http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml) the money we'll save as a nation by eliminating the insurance company middlemen will be completely eaten up in just 3 years.
What then?
People need to understand the problem is not the insurance companies. They, like the drug companies, just make for good bad guys.
I, like 90% of the people posting on this subject around the nation, am not a medical professional so I can't tell you for sure what the exact problem is. However, I do believe a big part of it rests in the following areas:
1) Lawyers. Doctors & hospitals spend way too much of their time and money paying/defending malpractice suits (or insurance).
2) Lawyers. Doctors & hospitals spend way too much money and time practicing defensive medicine. Too often doctors run a bunch of tests just to make sure they didn't miss something for fear of getting sued later.
3) Americans are unhealthy. I'm sorry but people who are grossly overweight, don't exercise, smoke, drink too much, or engage in high risk entertainment activities should have to pay more in to the system.
4) Universities. In 2008, the average medical student graduated with over $150,000 debt. That's up 11% from 2007. Combine that kind of debt load with malpractice insurance costs and is it any wonder we have to pay a fortune to see a doctor?
I know it makes us all feel good to tear apart the insurance companies, but it's time to stop being distracted about that issue. If we really want universal coverage that everyone can either afford or that the government can provide without bankrupting the nation, we need to start focusing on actual health care costs and reform.
That means Tort reform, lifestyle changes for Americans (or cost incentives to do so), and a university system that allows our doctors to graduate without a crushing debt load.
I'm just posting this comment because I forgot to click the little, "Check to receive an email..." box with my last post and I want to stay tuned in to what people are saying. :)
Health care is an ethical issue, not a political one. We need to look beyond our typical, tragedy of the commons approach to health care as a scarce resource and take our place among the other prosperous nations of the world as responsible citizens. While neither corporations or government are close to perfect systems, WE are the shareholders in our government, so as individuals we have far more power and responsibility to affect change. Great article!
Few words:
Corporations owns the Pentagon, The White House, The House of Representatives; sentors and congres. It is such a corrupt incompassional corrupt -big big time- political sistem in the USA that they ground the republican priciple, democracy and decency. Capitalism was good until pass the next phase; imperialism. Imperialism with crime; fascisim. This is where US government is nowadays. Facismo is equal to corporate own the government and have no regulation to capital; they do whatever to get "lots" of money no matter how; wars, no health care, bailsout, as an example. More laws, more rules, patriot act, more lies (9-11) and so on. Wake up Northamericans...
with all my respect and love
Wow! Did you hit a nerve.
My only comment is - are we looking at the part of the iceberg showing or at the real danger.
IF - Note the word "if". Corporations looked at the people they use to make their "profits" as true corporate assets, then there would be no major health care problem and even unemployment would be low.
The underlying critical issue is capitalism without social responsibility. And Yes, I am a full blooded Conservative Republican. I just can no longer stand by when corporation hide their shame behind the cheep cover of bottom line focus.
The people on the floor made the profit not the wheeler dealers harping derivatives.
@Matt, Nicely said. Here are two other cost-reducing piece of legislation that could benefit the healthcare consumer:
5) Inter-state Insurance - Let consumers shop for insurance across state lines. It increases competition and reduces the administration of regulation compliance from 50+ entities to 1.
6) Self-controlled Cost - The best way to control cost is to put the control in the hands of the person (entity) making the payments. Right now most of those decisions are being made by insurance companies and employers. Americans are terrible healthcare consumers because we have no idea how much treatments cost. Heck, most doctors don't know either. I'm a big fan of high deductible healthcare plans that include 100% coverage for preventive care. I have one and can tell you about an elective treatment that cost me HALF because I asked some simple questions about cost, prior to receiving the treatment.
In addition to your four cost-cutting suggestions, I would add:
1) Portability - It seems terribly unfortunate (ridiculous?) that the employee workforce risks losing their healthcare coverage if they want or need to change employers. COBRA helps but doesn't take care of the person that only stays with employers for a short time. Maybe it's time to remove the selection of healthcare insurance from the employer. This requires tax incentive legislation that puts the individual as the benefactor.
2) Pre-existing conditions - If individual portability becomes a reality for the masses then pre-existing conditions shouldn't be an issue for those that are happy with their current coverage.
3) Coverage Cancellation due to high payout - I wish we could buy insurance with unlimited payout. Pay your premiums, stay with the same provider and why shouldn't we have the peace of mind that we are covered for our whole care? This obviously could increase the cost of healthcare, but is a good example where 'compassion' (or in my business, customer service) comes in.
¿...?
As a rebel agitator...I have to chime in...We are the government. The government is run by those who get involved and actively participate with their vote, with their political contributions both financial and physical. If Jefferson had his way our nation would have been a Republic and not a Democratic Republic. While Ole' TJ was a smart man, he was a man and had his failings both as a politician and as a genius...but as to the issue of health care: when did health care become a privilege of the upper middle class and not a basic human right? We need a complete shift in thinking in this country. We have people who live totally destructive lifestyles eating pure garbage and our nation is getting fatter and fatter and more and more unhealthy so more of our dollars are spent on care for self-inflicted ills? Our health care industry is a for profit entity in most states (there are a few exceptions - MN for one) and our people continue to gorge from the trough of excess and now have a shorter life expectancy then their parents. Hmmm...add to that the corporations who knowingly add addictive substances to our foods because they are cheap and subsidized and what do you get? A plethora of unhappy, unhealthy citizens who are pissed off at each other and then get on forums like this to gripe about Big Government or Where's the Government... Something has to be done. Angry rhetoric is not the answer. More and more Americans are losing their jobs and losing their health care access. More and more companies are offering less and less to their employees in the way of benefits. The burden on the American worker to bare the brunt of their health care costs is growing at an astounding rate. Health care reform has to happen on MANY levels. Does my 90 year old grandmother really need a knee replacement? Do I really need a prohibitively expensive and invasive test to determine if I have a wheat allergy? Does my daughter really need an MRI to diagnose TMJ? Does my 55 year old post menopausal sister need a 72$ pregnancy test before her surgery? We need to challenge the way things are done currently...'cause it ain't workin'! The poor are not the only people in America not covered by insurance. There is little incentive for the jobless to get off welfare and out in the workforce even if there were jobs to be had. You can't afford insurance on minimum wage. Hell, you can't afford many insurance plans even if you make union wages with or without a family! Let's quit arguing over whose responsibility it is and the role of corporate greed. The people have the power to create a new and dynamic method to care for their own citizens. Something has to be changed cause what we are doing now is not working!
I knew I was going to have a problem with this article when I saw the title. I reject the hidden premise that capitalism is inherently the source of non-compassion. Compassion is an emotion, a human trait, something people do out of feelings for each other. It isn't linked to any form of bookkeeping or method of commerce, and it is most certainly not a result of the confiscation of property at gunpoint. Various forms of commerce and bookkeeping have been tried through history, but only one, capitalism, is based on the principle of true value and honest accounting. Truth and honesty are virtues that allow people to interact and express themselves freely, and it is from people's free expression of their emotions that compassion springs. Those who rail against corporations as being bogeymen are overlooking the role that government played and continues to play in supporting them. The answer to corporate abuses is not more of the government that created it in the first place, it is less. Ultimately, true peace and prosperity (and optimum health for all) will not be achieved until we get rid of the institution of government altogether and replace it with a society structured around voluntary association rather than one based on the licensing of the use of force to certain people.
Take it away, you got it! "Something has to be changed cause what we are doing now is not working!"
Awnser; Bi party political system is not working. They are the same corrupt machinery of the US. Did you see Ralph Nader -by chance- last political mascarade where Obama was the elected "new king" of the system? Obama is the President but has no power on the Power. You northamericans needs to dump those political parties to the trash or they going to buried you to misery (and the world too)...
With all respect and love.
What are you doing in terms of taking any action beyond writing?
I mean writing and expressing your opinion is awesome. I know I have a lot of pent up feelings and ideas about healthcare and it feels good to articulate it all via writing or talking.
But...
What are you doing the make your ideas a reality even if what you're doing are small things like eating well and getting regular exercise or attending a city council meeting?
¿...?
I saw Michael Moore on the Jay Leno show and he mentioned that 1% of the people have 95% of the financial resources of our nation. How on earth do we repair this inequity?
Question: Why is Congress dancing around avoiding single payer health plans which have proven worldwide to save gobs and gobs of money?
If people who have written anti-single payer comments actually knew about the excellent level of quality health care available in Norway, the second most expensive health system in the world, they wouldn't have written those comments. The outcomes in nearly all categories--life expectancies, child birth deaths, cancers, heart and other outcomes are all very nearly the best in the world. The USA with the highest worldwide costs TWO to THREE TIMES comparable countries is about 37th worldwide in results. Hey, we're not number one in anything except wasting money on insurer systems. It is disgraceful.
Despite insurance company propaganda, patients in the most successful health systems countries are seen immediately -- there is not the delay (threatened by insurers) while the clinic determines the varying payer protocols as we do in the USA. There is no waiting while payment is being verified. People can go to physicians of their own choice when they choose to -- they do not have an 85 page contract (that I have from Blue Cross) that spells out which PPO or providers are acceptable or not, and what co-pays or not for which approved procedures have been selected in advance for my undiagnosed conditions by actuaries and attorneys (not physicians). These contracts suck a lot of needless time out of the existing “system’”
Finally the quality is outstanding for everyone, AT ONE HALF TO ONE THIRD THE COST PER PERSON OF THE USA (including the 45 million uninsured). That means taxes and costs of doing business would go down. If GMC figures a cost of $1800 per car for health costs, and we had had a full public health system, GMC could have charged $1800 less per car, and just maybe would not have gone under. By the way this is true in Holland, Belgium, France, Germany, Singapore, Switzerland, Australia, Sweden, Denmark, Canada and many other countries that have more positive outcomes than our USA level of 37th. Get informed. Look up Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) on the Internet for statistics about developed nations worldwide.
A healthy population is a productive, effective, and intelligent population. Why are we letting the insurance world charge a 30% mark-up in extra administrative costs and profits to the tune of nearly $1 trillion, making our system extra complex, ineffective and super costly? Why are 75% of bankruptcies the result of a medical crisis? Why did 18,000 people die last year from lack of medical coverage?
Answer to question first posed: Our elected officials in Congress do not want to offend their biggest source of campaign funds -- the paying insurance constituents have more financial clout that the general public.
"No one should die because they cannot afford health care, and no one should go broke because they get sick."
@CarolAnn I'd be very careful about quoting Michael Moore. From everything I've read and seen, about 40% of the nations wealth is controlled by 1% of the population. That's still high, but it's not even close to what Moore is stating. He's often willing to bend the truth or even flat out lie to get his point across.
Lots of really good debate and excellent points on both sides. I will make mine short and sweet. I think one solution is to make health insurance companies be non-profit agencies - that are not run by the government.
I totally believe most of what I spend on medical care should go to the provider - not some fat cat in a suit that determines who lives and who dies - to be dramatic but not too far off - while collecting huge paychecks and bonuses. Get rid of whiny shareholders, and let the insurance agency help deliver good service.
ok... this is where the all money is including the monies of the Healthcare system... just a taste;
Two years ago on September 16, 2007, on a steamy hot Baghdad day with temperatures reaching 100 degrees, a heavily armed Blackwater convoy entered a congested intersection at Nisour Square in the Mansour district of the Iraqi capital. The once-upscale section of Baghdad was still lined with boutiques, cafes and art galleries dating back to better days. The ominous caravan consisted of four large armored vehicles with machine guns mounted on top.
Share this article
Related Also By Outsourcing the War in Afghanistan Blackwater
MSNBC : The Nation's Jeremy Scahill describes the blurring of lines between the military and companies like Blackwater, who are engaging in armed combat in the current wars. Flushing Blackwater Blackwater
Jeremy Scahill: Recent disclosures of Blackwater's covert activities may finally force Congress to take action. » More Why Is Obama Still Using Blackwater? Blackwater
Jeremy Scahill: Two years to the day after the Nisour Square massacre, Blackwater remains in Iraq, armed and dangerous. Harry Reid: Investigate Iraq Electrocutions Iraq War
Jeremy Scahill: The Senate majority leader calls on Gates and Clinton to find out if shoddy electrical work by contractors killed Adam Hermanson. The Death of Adam Hermanson Iraq War
Jeremy Scahill: The family of a military contractor electrocuted in Baghdad is alleging his employer, Triple Canopy misled them about how he died. As the Blackwater convoy was entering the square that day, a young Iraqi medical student named Ahmed Hathem Al-Rubaie was driving his mother, Mahasin, in the family's white sedan. As fate would have it, they found themselves stuck near Nisour Square. The family were devout Muslims and were fasting in observance of the holy month of Ramadan.
Ali Khalaf Salman, an Iraqi traffic cop on duty in Nisour Square that day, remembers vividly when the Blackwater convoy entered the intersection, spurring him and his colleagues to scramble to stop traffic. But as the Mambas entered the square, the convoy suddenly made a surprise U-turn and proceeded to drive the wrong way on a one-way street. As Khalaf watched, the convoy came to an abrupt halt. He says a large white man with a mustache, positioned atop the third vehicle in the Blackwater convoy, began to fire his weapon "randomly."
Khalaf looked in the direction of the shots, on Yarmouk Road, and heard a woman screaming, "My son! My son!" The police officer sprinted toward the voice and found a middle-aged woman inside of a vehicle holding a 20-year-old man covered in blood, who had been shot in the forehead. "I tried to help the young man, but his mother was holding him so tight," Khalaf recalled. Another Iraqi policeman, Sarhan Thiab, also ran to the car. "We tried to help him,'' Thiab said. "I saw the left side of his head was destroyed and his mother was crying out: 'My son, my son. Help me, help me.'''
Officer Khalaf recalled looking toward the Blackwater shooters. "I raised my left arm high in the air to try to signal to the convoy to stop the shooting." He says he thought the men would cease fire, given that he was a clearly identified police officer. The young man's body was still in the driver's seat of the automatic vehicle and, as Khalaf and Thiab stood there, it began to roll forward, perhaps as a result of the dead man's foot remaining on the accelerator. Blackwater guards later said they initially opened fire on the vehicle because it was speeding and would not stop, a claim hotly disputed by scores of witnesses. Aerial photos of the scene later showed that the car had not even entered the traffic circle when it was fired upon by Blackwater, while the New York Times reported, "The car in which the first people were killed did not begin to closely approach the Blackwater convoy until the Iraqi driver had been shot in the head and lost control of his vehicle," meaning Blackwater had already shot the man. "I tried to use hand signals to make the Blackwater people understand that the car was moving on its own and we were trying to stop it. We were trying to get the woman out but had to run for cover," Thiab said.
"Don't shoot, please," Khalaf recalled yelling. But as he stood with his hand raised, Khalaf says a gunman from the fourth Blackwater vehicle opened fire on the mother gripping her son and shot her dead before Khalaf's and Thiabs' eyes. "I saw parts of the woman's head flying in front of me, blow up," Thiab said. "They immediately opened heavy fire at us." Within moments, so many shots had been fired at the car from "big machine guns" that Khalaf says it exploded, engulfing the bodies inside in flames, melting their flesh into one. "Each of their four vehicles opened heavy fire in all directions, they shot and killed everyone in cars facing them and people standing on the street," Thiab recalled. "When it was over we were looking around and about fifteen cars had been destroyed, the bodies of the killed were strewn on the pavements and road." When later asked by US investigators why he never fired at the Blackwater men, Khalaf told them, "I am not authorized to shoot, and my job is to look after the traffic."
The victims were later identified as Ahmed Hathem Al-Rubaie and his mother, Mahasin. That attack on Ahmed and Mahasin's vehicle would be the beginning of a fifteen-minute shooting spree that would leave seventeen Iraqis dead and more than twenty wounded.
One of the Blackwater "shooters" that day, Jeremy Ridgeway, later admitted in sworn testimony, that he had killed Mahasin by firing "multiple rounds" into her vehicle and that "there was no attempt to provide reasonable warning."
After Ahmed and Mahasin's vehicle exploded, sustained gunfire rang out in Nisour Square as people fled for their lives. In addition to the Blackwater shooters in the four Mambas, witnesses say gunfire came from Blackwater's Little Bird helicopters. "The helicopters began shooting on the cars," officer Khalaf said. "The helicopters shot and killed the driver of a Volkswagen and wounded a passenger" who escaped by "rolling out of the car into the street," he said. Witnesses described a horrifying scene of indiscriminate shooting by the Blackwater guards. "It was a horror movie," said officer Khalaf. "It was catastrophic," said Zina Fadhil, a 21-year-old pharmacist who survived the attack. "So many innocent people were killed."
Another Iraqi officer on the scene, Hussam Abdul Rahman, said that people who attempted to flee their vehicles were targeted. "Whoever stepped out of his car was shot at immediately," he said.
"I saw women and children jump out of their cars and start to crawl on the road to escape being shot," said Iraqi lawyer Hassan Jabar Salman, who was shot four times in the back during the incident. "But still the firing kept coming and many of them were killed. I saw a boy of about 10 leaping in fear from a minibus--he was shot in the head. His mother was crying out for him. She jumped out after him, and she was killed."
Salman says he was driving behind the Blackwater convoy when it stopped. Witnesses say some sort of explosion had gone off in the distance, too far away to have been perceived as a threat. He said Blackwater guards ordered him to turn his vehicle around and leave the scene. Shortly after, the shooting began. "Why had they opened fire?" he asked. "I do not know. No one--I repeat no one--had fired at them. The foreigners had asked us to go back, and I was going back in my car, so there was no reason for them to shoot." In all, he says, his car was hit twelve times, including the four bullets that pierced his back.
Ridgeway, the Blackwater operative, admitted that he and the other Blackwater operatives "opened fire with automatic weapons and grenade launchers on unarmed civilians." None of the victims that day "was an insurgent," he said, adding that "many were shot while inside of civilian vehicles that were attempting to flee." Ridgeway said one Iraqi was shot "while standing in the street with his hands up."
Mohammed Abdul Razzaq and his 9-year-old-son, Ali, were in a vehicle immediately behind Ahmed and Mahasin, the first victims that day. "We were six persons in the car--me, my son, my sister and her three sons. The four children were in the back seat." He recalled that the Blackwater forces had "gestured stop, so we all stopped.... It's a secure area so we thought it will be the usual, we would stop for a bit as convoys pass. Shortly after that they opened heavy fire randomly at the cars with no exception." He said his vehicle "was hit by about thirty bullets, everything was damaged, the engine, the windshield the back windshield and the tires.
"When the shooting started, I told everybody to get their heads down. I could hear the children screaming in fear. When the shooting stopped, I raised my head and heard my nephew shouting at me 'Ali is dead, Ali is dead.' "
"My son was sitting behind me," he said. "He was shot in the head and his brains were all over the back of the car." Razzaq remembered, "When I held him, his head was badly wounded, but his heart was still beating. I thought there was a chance and I rushed him to the hospital. The doctor told me that he was clinically dead and the chance of his survival was very slim. One hour later, Ali died." Razzaq, who survived the shooting, later returned to the scene and gathered the pieces of his son's skull and brains with his hands, wrapped them in cloth and took them to be buried in the Shiite holy city of Najaf. "I can still smell the blood, my son's blood, on my fingers," Razzaq said two weeks after his son died.
In all, the melee reportedly lasted about fifteen minutes. In an indication of how out of control the situation quickly became, US officials report that "one or more" Blackwater guards called on their colleagues to stop shooting. The word cease-fire ''was supposedly called out several times,'' a senior official told the New York Times. "They had an on-site difference of opinion." At one point a Blackwater guard allegedly drew his gun on another. "It was a Mexican standoff," said one contractor. According to an Iraqi lawyer who was in the square that day, the Blackwater guard screamed at his colleague, "No! No! No!" The Iraqi lawyer himself was shot in the back as he tried to flee.
I agree with your article 100%, Mr. Gittleman. I see the objectives of a decent person in three stages:
The primary objective is to render high-quality service (or create high quality products).
The secondary objective is to follow-up and make sure the customer is happy.
Money is just a result of achieving the objectives.
Moreover, a percentage of that money earned belongs to those entrapped by poverty (humans, not corporations which have bet their capital on financial schemes).
So the third and final objective of a decent businessperson—in my opinion—is to give plenty to those who have nothing. This should be voluntary on their own volition or through a charity.
However, governments must function and provide services such as a viable military and public safety (which includes HEALTH). Sorry, but taxes must be levied in order to do this.
American citizens and do not like taxes should move to another country such as Somalia or Afghanistan where the man with the most guns and money IS the government (women hold very little clout in such environments).
I greatly admire other countries who have successful government run healthcare programs. However they have very different cultures and populations than in the U.S. Not to mention the fact that they're just so much smaller. I think sometimes we forget how incredibly diverse the U.S. population in in terms of culture, income levels, and education.
Be careful about using other countries as a template for our own needs in the U.S. You cannot replicate those programs here point for point.
Julie,
"There isn't one government run program that isn't going bankrupt! Not one!!!!!! We'll all have health insurance....but we sure as hell won't be receiving any treatment!"
I agree totally. Assuming we all greedy, what is the difference between government and private enterprise? It is competition.
Competition generates a psychological phenomenon that government lacks.
Corporations are selfishly unselfish.
They are going to get what they want and be selfish about it but they will be unselfish in what they offer. That is, with competition and knowing we are shopping around, they must offer more than the competitor to stay in business. They must either give real benefits or produce the illusion of doing so.
Government does not work on a profit basis. Rarely is any competition offered.
As a former Financial Recruiter, I know personally that if you work for the IRS longer than 6 months, you are blackballed from private industry. They don't want you regardless of your credentials.
A profit mindset is very different than working with an open-ended checkbook. The motivation is very different and so are the results and hiring managers know it.
What happened to the latest "car-for-dollars" program? It ran out of money in days? Where were the accountants and pollsters? Do you really want to give them more of what they can't handle? You trust them?
Have we forgotten the whistle blowers who exposed government tax waste, fraud, misrepresentation, misappropriation of funds, sex scandals, money laundering, bribes, payoffs etc, etc etc, and there are people who want to say "..Oh yea--here--take more of my money?'
There is a war on and people better wake up.
@Judy Tallant, I like the idea of not-for-profit healthcare insurers. Many states already require or allow this.
If you could, would you choose a not-for-profit provider over a for-profit provider? It's like choosing a credit union over a bank. The "shareholders" of a credit union are the "members" who deposit the funds in the system.
More things that make you go hmmmm.
Geez - This has got to be one of the weirdest discussions I've read in a long time.
Here are some observations on my part: 1. My husband is British. Two of his relatives (mother included) were literally killed by their medical system. The mother was experiencing kidney failure (which was very obvious to us), and the kind folks abroad decided to have her wait until things got better. 2 -days later she was dead. Worked well, huh?
I was in a car accident in Canada. I was taken into the ER of the nearest hospital up-island from Victoria. The person told us as I was wheeled into the ER that I would have to wait to receive triage "until these other people can been seen since they have appointments they set months ago." In an ER? That was weird. Came home days later and was treated in a US hospital. Muuuuuch better service.
My husband I live on my little tech salary. Last corporation I worked for, had an HMO sort of insurance. When my husband went was hospitalized, I quit looking at bills once they exceeded $250,000. I paid zero.
Now I work for a company that has the 80/20 plan. I pay bloody prices for both of us. Why is it that Swedish Hospital has one price for insurance, but I have to pick up the difference after the negotiated rate? Happens with all the docs. Last visit? $80k.
What if my company decides to cut back hours or no longer offers insurance? I'd be stuck using the Government Plan, if there was one. Right?
If I pay directly for service, I understand I'll be penalized for having better service than the Government Plan.
Please don't tell people what they can eat or not or whether they should exercise. Where is the "pursuit of happiness" for folks in the enforcement of these goofy rules over our lives?
Dunno. The propsal our leaders have been discussing doesn't appear to have win-win on it. More like, "we're gonna cram it down your throats cuz we know better".
I want lawyers out of the mix if at all possible. The docs visiting my husband charged $200 per 10 min of seeing him whilst at the hospital for checking his pulse and asking how he felt. Whad up with that?
Seems that fees should be less (and could be if docs didn't worry about getting sued every 5 minutes) and that only the unemployed or truly indigent have access to a plan to see certain docs if they need help. Leave the rest of us alone if we can scrape enough $ together to pay premiums and the remaining 20% of that huge bill...
I have been practicing chiropractic in America for nearly a quarter century. I'm so fed up with the arguments that I wrote 2 ebooks on the subject. "Exposed How Politics Increased the Cost of Health Care in America" and "Exposed The "Science" of Medicine and the Dollars it Generates."
When Hilliary care was being discussed, I showed up at a town hall meeting and stated the following: "We are talking about reducing the cost of a doctor visit. Right?" The legislator nodded. "What do you think would happen to the cost of a doctor visit if you went back to the legislature and made health insurance illegal?"
A retired thoracic surgeon provided the answer, "It would drop in a hell of a hurry."
To show you how crazy this discussion has become: When we talk about "health care providers" we now mean insurance companies not doctors. When we talk about health care reform, we mean regulating insurance companies or changing reimbursement, not changing our health care delivery system.
Some are claiming that medical care is the third leading cause of death in America. The source is an article in JAMA.
Diseases are now created by statistical correlation. 95% of middle aged men with severe hypertension will not have stroke or heart failure over a 10 year period IF NOT treated. Yet we treat 100%.
A MD friend of mine told me that he was told in his MBA program 10 years ago that we spend 50% of our health care dollars in the last few months of life. Does that make any sense?
We need to question the entire system - not just pay more and more.
Matthew,
Well said! May I have your permission to read it out loud to my Political Science college students this coming Fall Quarter 2009?
Cheers!
Erick Basir, no absolute answer are ok in any debate...
Otilia, nice to have students, you are the force of the future, good! Read to them the next also, would be very polemic in the reality.
With all my respect.
Corporate Corruption Killing America
By Joel S. Hirschhorn
September 15, 2009 "Information Clearing House" -- Anyone smart and strong enough to fight delusional thinking and who pays attention to current events should clearly see that corporate corruption of the US political system is so pervasive and powerful that there will be no genuine reform of both the health care and financial sectors.
I always believed that president Obama was just a different color corrupt politician who was subservient to the two-party plutocracy. His so-called reform efforts and ludicrous federal deficit spending should disappoint all his non-delusional supporters.
For health reform the only genuine and sensible reform legislation should have been not much more than a single sentence mandating that every American has a right to full Medicare coverage. Period. End of story. True reform. True universal health insurance.
Let the health insurance industry sell their garbage to those choosing it over Medicare and as supplemental insurance, as is done today, to cover what Medicare does not. The one major reason why the US spends more of its wealth on health care than any other nation, but with lousy results for the population as a whole is that so many Americans and their employers buy costly private health insurance. Some things essential for human survival require government programs, like police and fire protection. The overwhelming opinion of those in Medicare is very positive. In fact it is far more positive than those using private health insurance.
But the health insurance industry and others have successfully corrupted Congress and brainwashed much of the population to fear true reforms. Sure, Congress will pass some legislation that Obama will sign and they all will claim victory. But the nation will not get true reforms and health care spending will continue to rise and bankrupt the nation.
And now we also are learning slowly that the financial sector that tanked our economy by pursuing enormously risky but profitable business practices and then was bailed out by the government has not learned any lessons. Banks and all kinds of financial companies are still pursuing risky businesses, still overpaying their top executives and still screwing consumers. Congress is unlikely to pass really tough regulations to put a halt to all the awful practices by financial companies. Why? Because Congress has been corrupted by money from this financial sector.
Make no mistake: Corporate corruption is a true bipartisan effort, perhaps the most bipartisan enterprise.
Obama is no more of a real reformer than any Republican. That so many on the far right think he is a socialist is laughable. He is nothing more than a defender of the corporate-owned two-party plutocracy. To see anything else is pure delusion. The US is being flushed away. A populist Second American Revolution is the only way to save the nation. It will not come from the efforts of anyone that is a Democrat or Republican.
Wake up America! Voting for Democrats or Republicans just perpetuates this corrupt system. They fiddled while Rome burned; we borrow while America sinks.
Contact Joel S. Hirschhorn through delusionaldemocracy.com
Thank you Julie Celeste (and a few others) for taking the stand against those who think government is the answer to everything.
we are saying that the US government is sunk in a deep corruption David and as consecuence the economical system is a mess. No good will will save this system but the radical change on it.
with all respect.
The unapologetic Free-Market Religion is definitely in full swing in America! Amen!
Yes! Free-Market Freedom. Competition. Health Insurance Heaven. Sick and poor people would be the perfect alternative fuel to get us off of that Arab-Venezuelan Hydrocarbon Dictator oil (you can't make a profit from sick and poor people unless you get them to buy lottery tickets and bet on racetrack horses). Here's how to pull it off:
Let's line them up in a New York "Death Panel" Marathon. Whoever makes it to the finish line, gets free treatment. With their catheters, crutches and chemo intravenous-drip bags, very few will make it (they just can't compete). As they expire during the race, we can scoop them up with our privatized, no-bid solid waste disposal trucks and put them in privately-owned apartment incinerators. They will help power our office buildings and coffee shops.
On that note, I would like to invite everyone to join me and thousands of other lovers of freedom and haters of government (especially that Nazi Obama government):
One Million Strong Against Our Socialist Fire Departments! http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/group.php?gid=111256528714&ref=ts
David, that's what I was thinking, thank you and a few other freedom lovers for standing up for freedom.
@Berry- I bank with a credit union. Better service, lower fees.
@Rita - I agree about the ludicrous fees Dr.s charge to come visit you in the hospital. One thing that may not be as apparent though is that they do sit and review every jot and tittle the nurses and techs have made regarding vitals, etc - and that does take some time.
And yes, Dr.s fees are insane because they some how have to manage to earn a living after paying huge malpractice premium and having entire staff dedicated to administering insurance claims of their patients.
One of the biggest misconceptions about being compassionate is that giving a hungry man a fish is compassionate. Maybe so. But give that same man a fish the next day and its not compassionate, its dependance. Teaching the man to fish is where compassion exists. A government run health care system doesn't show compassion to those without health insurance. It shows a lack of confidence in their own decision making. Any form of Government growth does exactly that. Benjamin Franklin is judged by many to be the first person to represent a true American. He believed entreprenuers did best for themselves by serving the community as a whole. He was also very concerned about Government "welfare" programs that created a dependent class of people. The problem with our health care system is that it costs so damn much. It costs so much in part because it can. Welcome to Economics 101. The largest payers of health care and health care premiums in this country are Government and Big business. Since they have the deep pockets and to this point have always foot the bill costs have continued to rise. So wouldn't creating a larger government run health insurance program amount to feeding the beast? In my opinion, absolutely. Health care costs too much. The health care system is a beast, a monster. So quit feeding it. Take away its money. Somewhere in our past it became common for businesses to provide what was called a "benefit" by paying for health insurance for its employees. What would happen if they stopped doing that? Well, insurance companies would have to sell their products to individuals. Would most indivduals be able to afford health insurance as its currently structured? No. So, what would happen. Insuirance company's would have to lower their premiums merely to sell their product. I could go on and on...but here's what needs to happen. The Federal Government needs to insentivise insurance company's writing more indivdual or family health plans, and de-incentivise corporate health plans. Tax them more. Over time costs would drop. Here's another simple and relatively cheap idea straight from Economics 101 from the Chapter on Supply and Demand. Make it financially easier to become a Doctor. We have a shortage of them right now anyway. What happens when you have high demand and short supply? Costs rise. So provide incentives for students to become doctors. Provide more Pell Grants specifically for medical training. Make being a doctor cool, a service to your country, or whatever else will create more of them. With more doctors there is more competition equalling lower costs. Lastly, get Government regulations removed from much of the health care system. Did you know most 50+ year old menopausal women covered by a corporate health insurance plan have included in that plan maternity coverage. And they pay for it. They pay a lot for it. Since they are biologically incapable of having children anymore you must ask yourself, why? Because the government says her health plan has to have the same components in it that the plan offered to the woman's 25 year old co-worker's plan has. The Government says otherwise its discriminartory. That's just plain stupid. Oh, and that 25 year old co-worker is also paying for geriatric coverage for the same reason. Government regulation requires this. Their is one more thing that continues to get lost in this debate. No where in our beloved Constitution does it say the Government is responsible for paying for your health care coverage. In fact the framers of the Constitution would remind you that they fought and died for a smaller Government that was involved in the average citizens life as little as possible. Small detail, I know. But I thought I'd mention it.
Michael Schuett
I think everyone agrees the various levels of government should spend public money on some things; police, fire service, road works, parks, schools, disaster relief, military, major infrastructure (interstate highway system, internet, etc), etc, etc, etc, and not on others.
Would it not be more productive to talk about what the government should and should not spend money on?
I do not expect the fire department to make a profit. I do not expect our K-12 system to make a profit. I do not expect our military to make a profit. I do not even expect the post office to make a profit. I believe they provide services that provide benefit for the greater good and are worthy of public funding.
Would it not make more sense to discuss the goodness or badness of government expenditures with a focus on what the expenditures are? Is the war in Iraq worth the money? The war in Afghanistan? The CDC? FEMA? Farm subsidies? Our K12 school systems? The interstate highway system? The GPS system? The list goes on and on. Would it make sense to talk about how we spend our public money rather than talk about how incompetent our governments and corporations are? I have come to the conclusion that all large organziations are incompetent, it doesn't matter what kind they are. So let's move past that.
Ooo, I can't wait! First the government will pick up health care. Then they'll pick up auto insurance. Next, they'll subsidize food (oh, wait! They do!). Why, pretty soon you'd have to be stupid to want to make an income. A few hours a weeks and I can pay my rent, food and gas, then I can kick back and let everyone else pay my way.
Hey, it works great for the Native Americans who have all their needs taken care of by the government. Like that beautiful new High School that no one attends because, hey, why bother if the government is going to take care of everything?
When everyone wakes up and realizes that the government punishes us for making an income instead of taxing us solely when we spend, then real change will take place. Health care isn't the issue to tackle, tax collection is.
The issue concerning health care is not about everybody having coverage. Most Americans are simply concerned about the Federal government running the program. I agree that insurance premiums are awfully high and keep rising. Unfortunately, I do not know the answer but there are a few things to think about. During my youth in Montreal there was never a problem seeing my doctor however, I was an EMT and I could write a long list of differences between Quebec and American hospitals, including no admittance unless you PROVE you have insurance. The exception was for life threatening emergencies only. Health care in Canada is run by the provinces, not the Federal government. Prescriptions are not covered. Canadians pay a 5% federal tax on everything including a haircut, on top of a sales tax, which can be as high as 7.5%. I could go on and on but the point is, if we are going to do anything, let's learn from other countries and put our heads together to come up with a much better solution, rather than following only other examples and possibly destroying what is, in general, the best health care in the world. And one last remark. The biggest thing about my memory of Quebec hospitals (besides the very long wait and refusal of some physicians to speak English, yes!) was when my brother injured his arm and the hospital x-rayed his shoulder. I know this could happen anywhere, but it is only on of many entries on the list.
Just food for thought...
thanks for having the courage to write about this issue.
i am one of those americans who think europe is way ahead of us in healthcare.
i have a friend in norway, one in england and one in holland. all 3 of them are happy with the healthcare they get automatically by paying taxes in their country. just being a citizen they all get healthcare.
it's to the point where i might move to europe.
if you join the peace corps you also get 100% coverage for the 27 months you are in the peace corps.
the usa system is very bad. we already spend MORE than canada and we are not covered. something is very wrong when insurance companies can deny care when it's needed.
my friend in norway says they would never do that to anyone in norway.
i myself and a low income artist with no health insurance. i don't even trust our system enough to sign up for any plan either as what am i really paying for? they could deny me care if i need it and i refuse to get ripped off.
i think the usa should lower the budget for war and weapons and wallstreet and our tax money should go towards single payer healthcare for all. rich and poor.
shannon http://www.shannonkringen.com
I find most of these comments on all sides of this issue very thoughtful. What strikes me as deeply disturbing though is this fantasy so many have that are brought out in Julie's comments. The fantasy that we are in this pure capitalist society and that any social program will defile our flag and turn us into marxists communists. I hope you don't mind Julie but I looked at your profile here and you seem to be in the same boat as many of us, a small business owner. Do you buy insurance like the rest of us? Is it possible for you to look after your own self interests before taking up the struggle for the ultra rich? Why does the distribution of money for the payments of your health care have to be a source of profit for an insurance company? Many countries make this illegal. We have a mixed economy and some challenges are best met with a shared solution. We already have socialist, government run Army, Navy, Marines, schools , fire departments, roads and, mans greatest accomplishment to date, putting a man on the moon, government run. So Julie, why can't we discuss a solution for the people and by the people without flat earther's like you shouting out "your a commie"?
You quote Senator Ted Kennedy as stating: ""It's only fair to all Americans to have the kind of healthcare I have, especially if they cannot afford it."
It states in the Constitution that we have a right to the PURSUIT of happiness. But, it does not say that we have a right to happiness. Nor does it say that we have a right to health care. Nor does it say that we must be forced to pay for someone else's healthcare.
What you are advocating in your article is socialism. I hate bleeding heart liberals like you, who try to use the guilt card on people. Is that also how you do your therapy? Mr. Giittleman, you know nothing about this country and its values. If you wish to donate to charity that is commendable, but how dare you advocate that other people should be forced, out of taxation, out of confiscation, to give their hard earned money to to other people.
I think everyone agrees SOMETHING must be done. I am not opposed to a non-profit solution, I just don't want the government to handle it. They don't handle large scale projects well if it isn't military (internal competition keeps that mostly in check). The post office was and still is an embarrassement. Competition from FedEx and UPS has helped, but civil servants are rarely civil or servants.
Create a non-profit run by insurance executives with a strong moral backbone to run in competition with for-profit insurance companies. Pull the non-watchdog regulations off all of them (allow cross state and health discounts) and things will straighten out quickly.
Allow churches to be groups, and associations, and not just companies.
Monopolies become sinkholes. That all I want to avoid. If the government does it, everyone is eligable and can't be "fired" but health accountability is important. Drug abusers should not be covered unless they're clean. Smokers and the obese should have to pay more. Discounts for people who regularly work out under supervision just like folks with anti-lock brakes get car insurance discounts.
Put it in the government's hands and no innovation will be encouraged.
I dissagree also. I support Julie's arguments and add my own...Being from Oregon, the Oregon Health Plan is a poor excuss for Healt Care and guess what, it is gov. run health care. I would refuse it just as I would refuse our Presidents Government health care plan....I will not accept a socialist health care plan for myself. I won't have them telling me when I am no longer fit to live since the cost to repair my body will be to much of a burden for the State of Oregon to pay. I also am against getting a check if I were providing health care. The money comes from my tax pocket just like it does from everyone of you hard working business owners here. I won't pay for others health insurnance coverage. I also don't have health care coverage myself. If I want it I can buy it..
Another thing. I am against them not specifically spelling out that abortion will be excluded from the health care plan.....Abortion is not rational health care. I don't like paying out of my pocket to kill babies. I will be a voice to keep them alive in the womb and to have a life and purpose.
I am for tax breaks for all of us, but our President will not go for that. I understand that health care goes up. That is a fact of life. I do loans and my cost raises also. Just a fact of life if the person wants a good loan to be done well. Yes, I have turned down clients that don't want to pay me what I am worth. I also understand the $8,000 tax credit on the table and understand my buyers can take advantage of it. I don't like it being there and I don't like my tax dollars going to help them purchase a first time home. Let them find the money if they want that home....I also dissagreed with cash for clunkers and I want to buy a newer car but will sell my current one and make less money that to recieve another government/taxpayer handout......YUKKKK...... JULIE, I will agree with you girl. We need to let folks who are self-employed that they will pay the greatest through the nose of our government system.... You keep it up, so will I..... Thanks for listening. Alan
Would you please think a minute about next...?
http://rethinkafghanistan.com/?utm_source=rgemail
and then think who make business with it...
Thank you for this well written article, Matthew. It sure did bring out the discussion. I'll add to it by posting this for those who want government to butt out :
http://incredimazing.com/page/Just_Say_No_to_Obama_and_Socialism
Unlimited wealth creates unlimited poverty.
No one should suffer and/or die from illness because they cannot afford health care, and no one should suffer financially because of illness.
Denial of medical treatment is absolutely absurd, but Socialized medicine is not the answer. I agree with Matt@Chicago.
Unlimited government creates unlimited poverty.
I pay for my own insurance, it's under $200 a month, it's for a catastrophic need, everything else I pay out of pocket, which is a lot less than the low deductible insurance would cost me. We have health savings accounts, we have many ways to have insurance, or money to pay for healthcare.............if you are too cheap to prepare or pay for it...because you gotta have that pack of cigarettes, or that cable tv...............you don't have a right to what I earn.
Julie...I hope against all odds that you have a wonderful happy, healthy life...shit happens, and it's devastating when it happens to you...and it can in the blink of an eye. I won't bore you with my details, but I am one of those who cannot get insurance because of "pre-existing conditions". I'm also self-employed. And I am damned lucky to have Medicaid because my cancer was found in a state sponsored program. How dare you to assume that I can't afford the more than 1K per month it would cost me just for medications, because I'm lazy, or irresponsible, or don't take care of myself, or smoke. How dare you !!!!!!!
And get insurance from private insurance? Oh, please, it doesn't exist for anything less than 1000 per month. We are not all cut from the same cookie cutter. We don't all get what you might get. I work damned hard for what I have , but the for-profit insurnces deny me coverage as a very small business, not part of a group. Get another job just for health insurance? I'm 62...Yeah, right. You know not of what you speak. Grow up !
you guys are serious? you're posting Glenn Beck things? Seriously? SERIOUSLY?
Sorry, Matthew...I support what you're saying. Obviously, there are people in Biznik who are of the what's in it for me ilk, and everyone else be damned....not the type of people that I'd want to do business with, I'm pretty sure.
To the gentleman from Binghamton, NY.. Your way of being an American is the only way? You're sure about that? Really, really sure about that?
We can agree to disagree on many things, I suppose. Many, many things, I'm sure.
Really? Really? Seriously? Seriously? Gee, I can't really compete with that.
It's easy to demagogue like Glenn Beck. It's tougher to do the real work of coming up with workable solutions to our tough problems. Many of our politicians are hard working thoughtful professionals who care about our future. Others are agents for the corporations . When I see folks like Julie with all her fear and loathing being lead around by these propagandists to the point where she feels she must accept the status quo because she's afraid to be called a socialist its disappointing to me. We need a Edward R.Murrow to stand up to these right wing knuckleheads so people like Julie don't feel so pathetic and insecure that she feels like she doesn't deserve good healthcare coverage . Really, really, seriously!!
"No one should die because they cannot afford health care, and no one should go broke because they get sick."
That is the reason for this dicussion.
Did anyone read this article? USA Today reporters spent 24 hours in the University of Virginia Emergency Room (excerpt below)
9/07/2009 USA Today
24 Hours in the ER
"The ranks of the uninsured, estimated at 46 million in 2007 by the Census and believed to be higher now, complicates health care and sometimes overwhelms emergency rooms. Under a 1986 federal law, hospitals must treat everyone who shows up and needs care, regardless of their coverage or ability to pay."
"About 30% of the patients who use the UVA emergency room in a year have private insurance; another 40% are covered by Medicare, the federal program for seniors, or Medicaid, the federal-state program for the poor. More than one in four are categorized as "self-pay" — that is, uninsured."
"Nationwide, 40% of emergency-room patients have private insurance and 17% are uninsured, according to a study released in July by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation."
Who do you think is paying for the one in four uninsured ER visits? The 46 million uninsured are people under the age of 65 (18% of the population) and that was in 2007. Over 18,000 uninsured people die every year due to lack of proper medical care. This is something we can't allow to continue in our country. Can't we discuss this topic rationally. It's fine to be passionate but not discourteous.
If socialized medical treatment is not the answer, what is?
It's time to do an intervention for Julie. She is seriously brainwashed by the likes of Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, and the rest of that posse who dare to moralize to the rest of us, while perpetrating the ugliest divisiveness in recent memory. Incidentally, what the heck did Bush ever try to do about this key issue during his 8 years? At least Obama has the intelligence and guts to try to fix a very broken system. Julie, you're living a sad existence if you've thrown your hat into the ring with these losers... For those of you who have chimed in on the side of keeping government out of your lives - good luck. Try this on for size - Your next police force will be provided by the folks at Blackwater, for a fee. Look at highways, water supply, food, and everything else that we need to move and live, and back government out. What's left - Nihilism. Enjoy!
Matthew, I have been in the home care industry for thirty years and seen some of the worst abuse that we as Americans can imagine. People who think they have paid taxes to insure that they can maintain their independence at home and find that their only alternative is to declare bankruptcy or move into a nursing home. If we as a people don't come together and demand that health care is a right and not a privlidge that is only available for those who can afford it then we are all damned to the same end. Thank you for your thoughtful piece. Tom Ramsberger
Friends,
Everything excess is bad, (even for that matter Happiness- If you don’t have sorrows you cannot enjoy happiness either) Even this rule applies to economic systems of country.
To share with friends here, Indian Economy, one of the biggest democracies working on principle of Mixed Economy, where capitalism is encouraged but with restrain and control coupled with socialistic approach and it proved beyond doubt that we survived worst crises what world faced. The impact was negligible to the extent that is was hardly felt. Infact Indian stock markets are now showing green and inflation levels rising which is good indicator and we feel that the worst is now over.
We hear thousands rendered jobless in US with every passing day and the situation is mainly due to uncontrolled capitalism. Obviously this leads to pressures on paying medical bills. This is the reason people from Europe, Us, Scandenevia, South Africa, Australia prefer to Travel India for Medical rehabilitation which is more cost effective for an individual rather to get treated in their respective countries.
Every "economic system" has its advantages and disadvantages, excess leads to corruption, red tape and rising of bad elements and power centers. Excess capitalism leads to cyclical turbulence while excess socialism leads to unrest like what we witness in Russia and China where unrest is dealt with bullets.
No doubt, US has grown to be reckoned as super power and soon will back on its performance track but only concern is how many people will be affected by then.
US is seen as elder brother of Indian and we all wish this crises should soon be over..
Regards Samir
We save you money by adding more middle men! Can you imagine an advertisement like that?
Right now the insurance companies are one layer of middle man. The Preferred Provider Organizations are another layer.
The courts have ruled that doctors cannot charge insurance companies a higher fee than cash patients and we must pursue our cash patients with due diligence. The result is the cash patient must pay for the cost of dealing with insurance and the doctor cannot negotiate a deal.
At the same time, it is legal for your insurance company to negotiate a lower fee. So the cash patient is the one getting hurt.
The health care debate seems to come down to our societies divide in perspective about how to live in this country. It is a divide between those that have completely different visions of the past present and future. We have been struggling as a society for a long time with this division. One side is tied to the concept that individual freedom means everybody out for themselves, no government help or intervention to moderate the excesses of some whose behavior limit and restrict others. So the idea that health care should remain forever as an instrument of profit with no checks or balances goes right along with this every person for themselves perception. I happen to believe that Social Democracy is the only way to balance out this "profit as the only concern mentality," that evolves from out of control capitalism. Greed pure and simple. When we socialize certain aspects of society we level the playing field and we take away the greedy capitalists ability to profit from peoples misery, (like ill health, like a lack of education due to financial status.) In a social democracy people still get to make as much money as they are able to. It just means that the majority of the population are not restricted by a wealthy and often greedy minority. What the rest of the world seem to understand is that a basic safety net for the whole population is the only way to level the playing field and have a check and balance over the out of control consequences of a corporate capitalist system which is not democracy.
While my post may seem to support unrestricted capitalism, my main point is that we are failing to look at all the factors involved.
I should be allowed to refuse any medical treatment I do not want. My grandchildren should not live in poverty because my life was extended by one week.
I agree totally, as a believer in alternative or natural medicine, I don't have a lot of use for traditional western doctors or the insurance that is generally out there. So I definitely don't ever want to be forced to accept care i don't believe in. With a single payer system or universal system, as in other countries, alternative and natural medicine is often included. Being forced to buy insurance from the current insurance model also goes against my grain. I will not be forced to buy into insurance that does not fit what i belief about health and care.
Need to post one more time just to get off this list. A little too much traffic. Good discussion, but I have to get some work done today so I can afford to pay my catastrophic health insurance plan next month. :)
I am an independent thinking individual capable of seeking knowledge and reaching my own individual opinion.
Because I believe there are solutions to the problem that don't involve the government taking over does not make me a mean or selfish person.
If it isn't about a big power grab, then explain to me....why is this bill forcing 100% of us into the program?
12 million people here in America can't afford health insurance or can't get it..........why aren't they focusing on those 12 million?
Tort reform, [which requires Washington elitists to police their own people, so it will never happen].....
And Insurance law reform.....letting the insurance companies compete across state lines
....just two ideas of many that would go a long way to solving this problem. So why aren't they pursuing this avenue? Because it doesn't increase their power over our lives, that is why.
The average politician makes almost THREE times the average American worker. That is our hard earned money..so they can live their elitist [down their nose at we little people] lifestyles.
I ask you, where is the compassion when Americans are working almost half the year just to pay the government.....and this is before the huge take over of health care.
The mindless robots are those that believe there is only one solution, and that is to put a body of corrupt, greedy, power hungry elitists in charge.
I want the 12 million people that can't get coverage to have their coverage.....and we could do it today....if that were really the goal
We that are arguing and pushing for actual solutions that would ACTUALLY help people in need are the true compassionate.....not the OBOTS....ROBOTS.....being led by the nose by government elitists promising something for nothing....dangling that carrot to entice them to surrender their personal power in little pieces until one day they are completely bound.
Ironic that you lefty whackos are repeating lefty whacko propaganda while accusing me of repeating right wing whacko propaganda....I'm a conservative first......the difference is that I recognize that both parties are destroying this country, you still legitimize your lefty whacko party.
I hope for you to see that all the problems in the USA (and in the world ) are generated by the US government and his Imperial purposes. They spent more than they have. Owners of this govenment are the corporations. If you change the public for the FREE MARKET you are in trouble as US is at this moment. I share the next:
September 18, 2009
Dear Friend,
There is nothing more powerful than hearing someone speak from their heart. That is why I was so moved by Barbara Lee's passionate speech on the floor of Congress September 14, 2001, eight years ago this week. She was the only member of Congress, in both the House and Senate, to have the courage to vote no against authorizing war in Afghanistan. Her voice shakes with emotion, but she stands her ground with strength and grace and the knowledge that she is speaking the truth that desperately needed to be heard. Her's was the only voice of compassion, of reason, during such a charged and painful time. When she said "Let us not become the evil that we deplore," she knew the quagmire that would result from such military engagement.
This week, many of us took inspiration from Barbara Lee and used our own voices to speak out against our woefully misguided war in Afghanistan. As one woman, she spoke for many of us eight years ago. This week, we each have the opportunity to follow her lead and channel the outrage and hope of everyone who wants us out of Afghanistan; each day, we flooded the blogosphere and phone lines and opinion sections of newspapers with the words that need to be heard about why we need to end our involvement in Afghanistan. If you haven't already, you can still use these tools from CODEPINK to make your voice loud and clear.
One of the best bumper stickers I've ever seen says "Speak your truth, even if your voice shakes." If you haven't ever blogged or called your Congressperson before, now is the time to do so, even if your voice shakes. It is up to us to remember Barbara Lee's brave example, her voice trembling with deeply felt conviction. We need more Barbara Lees to speak out against war. We can be those Barbara Lees, ourselves. We are the ones we've been waiting for. When we speak together from the heart, we truly can change the world.
In solidarity, Susan Sarandon
silverio...........hmmmmmm? maybe you should begin a new article................what does Afghanistan have to do with health care reform?
The irony...I've never read so many people express their passion and feelings in such different ways while all saying the same thing.
I rated this article very high because of the strong postings - it is great to have this kind of freedom.
Thanks Matt.
Sandy www.CivilSplit.com
Wars are the origin of the Health Care crisis (and more). Go to the origin . Don't see only the bushes when inside in the deep forest is the problem. (metaphora).
with all respect...
Julie, I want to share the next Jen sent me. It is direct of the "leafs of those forest" I am talking about.
silverio --
For months, special interests and their Republican allies have been smearing health insurance reform to try to defeat it. Enough! As President Obama said last week, "I will not waste time with those who have made the calculation that it's better politics to kill this plan than improve it... If you misrepresent what's in the plan, we will call you out."
So we're starting a new campaign called "Call 'em out!" When a Republican official violates the public trust by lying about reform, we'll be right there to expose the lies and hold them accountable.
First up? Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, who has claimed that health reform will lead to death panels -- a claim so thoroughly debunked that even former Republican Congressman and conservative pundit Joe Scarborough spoke out about Pawlenty's false claims. Now it's time for us to call him out.
Get started at the new "Call 'em out!" action center.
Set the record straight about Pawlenty's lies by calling him out on Facebook or Twitter. Expose his shameful tactics to his constituents in Minnesota by funding our ad campaign. Call and tell him to stop lying about health insurance reform and playing politics with the nation's well-being. And spread the word about his false statements and extreme views by sharing our web ad with friends and family.
If health reform is only a political equation to some GOP politicians, it's time to change the equation. Every Republican official must understand: If you lie about reform, the American people will call you out! Click here:
http://www.democrats.org/CallEmOut
Thanks for keeping the debate honest and fighting for the change Americans need.
Jen
Jen O'Malley Dillon Executive Director Democratic National Committee
Julie, I rest my case. Thanks
It seems pretty easy to put labels on what people choose to believe, like whacko. I agree that the politicians can not generally be trusted as long as they are in bed with the special interests. As long as the corporate special interest ( big money) control the politicians and the debate we the people will not get a fair shake with health care or most any other area. As far as government taking over and ruining society by administering universal health care, take a look around the world, do you really believe that Canada, Europe and many other societies have lost their independence and are unhappily controlled by their government. This recent U.S. idea to force health insurance on every citizen is crazy. Single payer or universal health care still allows those that want and can afford it , buy whatever kind of insurance or care they want. What the conservatives don't want is to pay a penny more in taxes to help their fellow citizens or allow for a level playing field, basic equity and humanity. And having said that, I do have reservations about the ability of our government to be honest and operate from a sense of public trust rather than self interest. We have to take the big money out of politics or big money will always control government.
Well stated Michael Chadd, you also hit the nail on the head, taxes!
Good luck Matthew...
I would die much more quickly if I didn't get food to eat, so lets have the government pay for my food budget. That way I can use the funds I currently use to buy food and purchase health insurance.
Without water I would die even more quickly than if I didn't get food. Maybe the government can pay my water bill as well.
Anyone who thinks this will end with the government simply paying for healthcare is kidding themselves. Politicians always need to show that there is a reason for them to remain in power. It is healthcare now. Who knows what will be next.
The government that governs least, governs best. Thomas Jefferson.
That's correct Carl and Mr. Jefferson (lol).
if you want to know how we the people can become our own powerful "special interest" group, go icaucus.com......that's exactly their mission.....but it's up to us to take action to do it.
Oil companies wants the oil and gas in Afganistan (and everywhere) so they can make business -big time- at 3 to 4 dolars by galon in the USA. People pay for the US ARMies, our boys and girls pays with their blood. (In Venezuela the galon cost 40 to 60 cents roughly). Health care problem it is a problem now; there's no money because wars, don't you see my fellow friends?
The United States Empire is following a long line of empires and conquerors that have met their end in Afghanistan. The Median and Persian Empires, Alexander the Great, the Seleucids, the Indo-Greeks, Turks, Mongols, British and Soviets all met the end of their ambitions in Afghanistan.
And today, the US Empire is on the fast track of its demise. A recent article by Tom Englehardt provides us more key indicators of this:
Genghis Khan could not hold onto Afghanistan.
Neither will the United States, particularly when in its desperation to continue its illegal occupation, it tosses aside international law, along with its own Constitution.
Carl Reed, I hear what you saying, but I don't think in the world today it is reality to believe the people alone will look out after the good of the whole society. Case in point, we leave it up to the bankers to regulate themselves and they go hog wild with greed and self interest. We let the insurance companies run with no government oversight and in the quest for endless profit they prey on the poor and profit off the misery of the sick. If the government which is actually supposed to be us the people don't safe guard the water supply from the corporate control for profit, you may very well be asking the government to pay for your water, because you have to have water to live. People need health care to live, if unregulated private for profit companies control everything because we don't want to have government involved. You will see the equality in terms of level of lifestyle become unbearable for the majority so the minority can do as they please with no government intervention. I guess people who believe that there should not be any government involvement in these issues, see themselves as untouchable by the effects of other peoples greed.
Carl you misunderstand the objectives of health care reform. It's not about giving people anything its about getting better value for what we are already paying. Having uninsured show up for emergency care is expensive and that cost is passed onto those of us who pay insurance. We get better value for our money if we include everyone and have single payer. If we can't have single payer than a public option would provide a strong stabilizing force for private insurance companies to compete against.
Opening up competition over state lines could help but then all you 10th amendment myopic's would cry bloody murder. Tort reform could also help.
If enough of us like you would rather cut off our nose to spite our face then we can continue with the status quo and wind up like Julie with her miserable health insurance coverage.
The Constitutions says provide common defense and promote public welfare.
If you want yours at the expense of every one else you are the enemy of America and the principles we were founded on.
Post me the capitalism provisions of the Constitution, Bill of Rights, or the Amendements before making more antiAmerican comments, please.
"provide" and "promote" have two different meanings.
How about you show me something the government runs that isn't going bankrupt. What you're advocating is the exact thing that has made California bankrupt........how compassionate is it to promise the world and then deliver nothing.
How compassionate is it to burden the people with a huge tax burden, and not only the people, but those that haven't even been born yet.
Why don't you socialist leaning whackos go find a socialist leaning country that you so admire and leave this country to those that want to preserve freedom and prosperity, because there is no other country in the world to enjoy this freedom.
Julie, no absolute answers are ok in any debate.
We are trying to tell the true. If you insist in supina ignorance or worst, plain ignorance is up to you but you have to face it, Patriot Act (just an example) cut your freedom and corruption and fascism in the US government endangerous your prosperity, not only yours but the entire country, the entire world. Open your eyes and see reality. Confi couch, BMW, cocacola and pizza doesn't give you knowledge.
My Grandfather used to barter his services as a physician for hogs, vegetables, etc.. In those days the government was less involved in the medical industry. It was voluntary
When I was a teenager a benevolent charity paid for my eye operation - Society for the Prevention of Blindness. It was voluntary.
Robert Afolter, Julie and Silverio De la Mora have laid down some great utilitarian arguments.
The real question is this: Is it moral for a majority of the population to loot a minority for the benefit of others. Does need, for whatever reason, justify robbery?
In America we think it's our job to force people to our way of thinking. Renounce communism or we'll blow you up! Renounce Islam or we'll torture you. Give your money to that overweight smoking drug addict, for his medical bills or we'll put you in a 10 X 10 cell with Ben Dover.
Liberty and justice the modern way.
To William Cole...are you saying that you categorize people who do not/cannot afford health insurance are all in the "overweight smoking drug addict" category? Just asking for a clarification. When I had no health insurance and could no longer walk or work because of the pain of osteoarthritis, and I got a hip replacement paid for by what is euphemistically called "patient assistance" (charity care)...was I robbing someone?
I am not going to force anyone to my way of thinking. I would expect that others would be the same way, whether it's about politics, health care, Glenn Beck, Barack Obama,religion, you fill in the blank. I would also hope that just because I don't think the way someone else does, that doesn't mean that they have the right to just sit there and call me names (ya know, like leftist whackos? rightist whackos? Is there any such thing as a "centrist whacko"?hehe). If we were all the same, in being, in doing, in believing, would we also be boring? ;-)
We can all agree to disagree, but the venom that comes from some of the posters - well, at least one - on here astounds me. There is no conversation when that happens, and more than ever, if these things are going to be worked out, we need conversation...on the local level, the state level, the national level, inside and outside of our government. Yes, there's still a government, for those who want it to butt out..hasn't gone away yet. We need to work with it, not condemn it...we need to work to change it if it isn't working. We don't need to tell those who one doesn't agree with to go to another country. I love my country, just as much as Julie does..because I disagree with her does not mean I'm anti-American. Geez...
So, you've heard of these evil corporations like Enron, Haliburton, Exxon and Walmart. But how about the more compassionate public sector:
*Mass murder, torture, oppression and imprisonment in wars: Spanish-american, Mexican-American, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Korea, etc. - democratically elected leaders.
*Mass murder, genocide persecution and imprisonment by governments of:Germany, Iraq, Lybia, Italy, Japan, China, etc. by democratically elected leaders.
*Trail of tears - democratically elected leaders.
*Imprisonment of Japanese-Americans - democratically elected leaders.
*Forced repatriation of captured Cossacks to the grueling death of the gulag - democratically elected leader.
*Forced removal of Palestinians from their homes following WWII - democratically elected leader.
I find it comical that Charles Manson is an infamous mass murderer because he directed a handful of people to kill 8 people, yet we excuse leaders who direct government war machines to kill hundreds of thousands on the based on a lie. And these blood soaked hands are the ones to whom we will entrust our medical care? That's crazy!
Hey Charlie, pass me a knife.
So, you've heard of these evil corporations like Enron, Haliburton, Exxon and Walmart. But how about the more compassionate public sector:
*Mass murder, torture, oppression and imprisonment in wars: Spanish-american, Mexican-American, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Korea, etc. - democratically elected leaders.
*Mass murder, genocide persecution and imprisonment by governments of:Germany, Iraq, Lybia, Italy, Japan, China, etc. by democratically elected leaders.
*Trail of tears - democratically elected leaders.
*Imprisonment of Japanese-Americans - democratically elected leaders.
*Forced repatriation of captured Cossacks to the grueling death of the gulag - democratically elected leader.
*Forced removal of Palestinians from their homes following WWII - democratically elected leader.
I find it comical that Charles Manson is an infamous mass murderer because he directed a handful of people to kill 8 people, yet we excuse leaders who direct government war machines to kill hundreds of thousands on the based on a lie. And these blood soaked hands are the ones to whom we will entrust our medical care? That's crazy!
Hey Charlie, pass me a knife.
What an overwhelming lot of response!
Our trouble as therapists is, that we have to earn money with other people's problems, which puts me in a dilemma.
President Obama was looking at the Dutch health system, as one to copy. However, the costs of this system are rising and out of any control. One of the downsides of care: Some people here do not take enough responsibility for their wellbeing, as 'the doctor will help'. Can doctors heal? No, they prescribe. The pharmaceutical industry is getting richer and richer, they have us in their grip. Side effects of medication cost the society dearly - the majority of population above 25 are on medication, which makes them suffer side effects, makes them more prone to accidents, makes them polute drinking water with the medicines left in their urine which cannot be filtered out, effecting all others. I could go on - Complementary treatments are being covered less and less by insurance companies, and only for those who pay a supplement for their health insurance.
I hope president Obama will find a GOOD model for the US healthcare system, one to really help, not just to provide medication.
Greetings from Holland, Monika
It's interesting that some people find the private enterprise system all good or all bad, and the same for government.
Both systems have done good things and bad things, and both are reflections of the people who make them up and society at large.
I suppose if everyone behaved with integrity and with understanding of, and empathy toward, others, both institutions would work better than they do.
As it is, the private-enterprise system is too frequently subverted by greedy individuals and outright con men.
Government is too often subverted by too easily bribed officials (bribery is bribery even if we call it "campaign financing") or by slothful employees or by poorly thought out programs and regulations.
However, our society needs both systems.
We need the private-enterprise system to efficiently distribute the goods and services we need and want, to grow our economy and provide jobs, and to foster innovation.
We need government to act as referee and rule-maker for the private-enterprise system so that it doesn't self-destruct--as nearly happened within the last year--and so that the "common good" is served.
It's too bad we get so hung up on labels such as capitalism and socialism instead of focusing on what we, as citizens want.
If we could get past labels and focus on what we want and what works, we would find it easire to find solutions to our problems. We might even open our eyes to the kind of successful, "mixed" systems that some European nations benefit from.
Please, read the Constitution before making wild accusation against the United States government. Then take a moment for the Decalaration of Independence. We are a system of laws that govern by the people for the the people. Giving excessive profits is nowhere to be found as a right to private enterprise.
I'm sorry for such a vague response let me share with you the last phrase of the Declaration of Independence:
And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
How about we make this real instead of hypothetical? It is Saturday morning. I'm at my office. The office is closed. I just answered the phone. A lady is upset with her previous doctor because he charged her $100 and told her to do yoga for her back pain. She already knows she has disc problems. She has hip pain. She has a damaged knee. She has a chipped tooth. She has no insurance. She makes $600 a month. My initial office exam will cost her over $100. I'll most likely need x-rays to determine what to do. By the time she leaves she will owe me over $300. She already knows she has disc problems. She is lifting 60 pound bags at Lowe's, the only job she can find. Lifting is further injuring her discs. It is unlikely that we will make any progress with less than a 3 month program of regular care and the cost will run over a couple thousand dollars. I am already taking care of two people for free. How far should my compassion go?
Franklin Delano Rosvelt... ¡the humanity needs you! Not only the US that since you die, the bankgsters(wall Street System) took a big bite on the people's treasury -as today- but the world need you... Since then, they change gradualy thru FOXTV the mentality to individualism and ego; hedonism, to most of them. " Coherent! Wars is normal." (no shit!) We need to go back to your days Mr. Delano, The New Deal. Keynesian economy. Nowaday , the two big political parties are the employees of the factic powers; Corporation, Bankgsters, Pentagon as well. And beacuse that, money dolar has a value of a toilet product and because that the US medical system is totally in geoparty but the majority of your people Mr. Rosvelt see nothing but monday night football, pizza, and beer... After two periods of election fraud (2000 - 2004) a color man is president of the US but as well, has no power over the Power and people still is ignorant about it. Well Mr. Dealano sorry for disturbing you you rest in peace. Receive all my respect.
Silverio
PS I have no medical insurance since I was born. Neither in the US nor in Mexico and I still I am healthy. If I need a doctor, I have doctors friends that they see medicine as a part of the humanity instead of a market.
For those of you who are curious about how to find common ground so that constructive action can actually occur, I highly recommend Don Lakoff's book: "Don't think of an Elephant." You will never think of "Conservatives" and "Progressives" the same way again.
This whole conversation leads to some revelations about the times we live in. We can always use history to give a sense of what worked before or what we should have learned to create a true just and equal society with truth and justice for all. But ultimately we are seeing today that a system that is solely motivated by the endless quest for profit, loses empathy, a sense of equality and equity. I conclude that an unregulated free enterprise capitalist system such as the one we are currently experiencing does not work. It eventually destroys itself. Greed is a strong human trait. it needs to be kept at bay by the over sight of the society at large, the government. Without social components like universal health care, education and anti monopoly restraints, the minority grab the wealth and power on the backs of the rest of society, its played out through out history. The one area today that has no historical precedent is the environmental destruction of our planet, which can makes this whole conversation a moot point. If we humans do survive on this planet, then I think it will also be because sane caring just people in this country moved us to a social democracy and away from the profit and consumption mentality that is taking us over the edge of the cliff.
Do I have a right to a drug because it exists? If I contract cancer, must I treat it? If I want to treat it, must it be provided to me?
Forgive me, this next statement is not meant to be cold, but it will sound like it.
In Dr. A's real life example he describes a woman who is physically broken and the only job she can get is a low paying entry-level job. Why?
Where is the accountability for our choices? I know many of the poor in our country are trapped in a cycle of poverty that includes defeatism and disdain for education. But 12 years of school are free in America. Libraries are free. Churches and ministries will mentor and educate if people desire change.
Ultimately, we the people and the socially responsible companies we own need to reach out to the disenfranchised with programs to provide skills training and education. Many of us already are. I've had far more poor people turn away from the seminars we put on than those who will attend.
The parable of the grasshopper and ants comes into play here. In a land of plenty, the irresponsible grasshopper eschewed hard work and education while the ants toiled. Come winter, the grasshopper had no way to survive the difficult winter. The ants took pity and CHOSE to help but the grasshopper did not deserve it or have a right to it.
No, not all uninsured people are obese drug abusers. In many cases, these people didn't make excelling a priority. Good people probably, but they make poor choices and should be accountable for their choices.
If you don't want insurance, fine, but you need to prepare for health issues either by putting money into an HSA or a bank account. If you don't have enough money, but you have a TV, a car, or anything beyond the basics, you've made a decision and should live or die by it. If you don't make enough money, improve your skills and ability and qualify for a better job. Resources surround us.
And if you've made bad decisions and find yourself in a difficult place, you need to seek the charity of others, not enforced wealth re-distribution.
If you've made rewarding decisions and find yourself well off, give a little back. Capitalism works well only in yolk with a wise and generous spirit.
Ben Franklin -- not a Christian -- pointed out that America would succeed only backed by religion's morals. Jefferson, in a letter, expounded on the separation of church and state. Among it's ramifications is that the government should not take the place of the church. Leave alms and aid to the church. If you're an atheist, find or found an atheist church, but let the government only concern itself with defense and infrastructure.
defense and infrastructure?
"Ok!"
Anyone who thinks that private insurance is the way to go hasn't walked in my shoes! After years of paying $600. which grew to $748.per month as I aged...when I really needed it-well let us say I have been fighting to get my shattered wrist paid for for 17 MONTHS. They are trying to say that the plate and nine screws that hold my wrist together were 'optional'. Excuse me but my wrist was in four pieces, the bone that supports my thumb in two...I have been a Massage Therapist for 20 yrs. w/o the surgery I would be unemployed. Plus I would like to add that my husband has family in Canada and they are quite happy w/thier insurance. Did you know in first world countries "American Style Insurance" is the SCARY SCENARIO keeps them supporting what they have?
And my friend who uses the government run VA is not classified as a diabetic because the VA scale is 2 points higher than the civilian scale (I admit to having no idea what the "scale" is) and so they will not treat him. There are horror stories on both sides of the scenario. I had pretty crummy insurance and when my daughter went blind for a several hours, the MRI bill was through the roof... and my rinky-dink insurance covered it all. Meanwhile, my dental insurance covered pulling a root canal and two wisdom teeth, but not the anesthetic that made it possible, and afterward announced they wouldn't cover the replacement for the root canal because filling the gap would be "cosmetic."
The thing that really bites is the Dem's are so hot on government "care" and the Rep's are championing intelligent fixes to the current system (most of which make sense and would save a lot of money), but nobody is willing to do the logical thing: A) Apply the fixes FIRST and if that doesn't work, B) Single-pager non-profit, non-government, and if that doesn't work, C) Government run medical care (Because it isn't possible to do it in the opposite direction).
During A and B, beef up the VA to what is should be. It is only right and proper that taxpayers support the very best of veteran care. IF they can get that working well, efficiently, and wisely, then they have evidence that it can work well. Right now it doesn't.
In the late 1960's, the USA was bitterly divided over a number of issues, which resulted in demonstrations in which Americans severely beat and even killed other Americans. I have not seen this county as divided as we are now since then. I vote for a little more civility in our discourse. I actually heard on the news a week or two ago that at a health care town hall meeting, one person bit off another person's finger. I hope the person who lost his finger had insurance.
Rob Swanson above makes a great suggestion.
"A) Apply the fixes FIRST and if that doesn't work, B) Single-pager non-profit, non-government, and if that doesn't work, C) Government run medical care (Because it isn't possible to do it in the opposite direction)."
Seems like a good idea to me.
Michael Chad - "an unregulated free enterprise capitalist system" is not something we are experiencing. Does this look unregulated to you?: SEC, FTC, FDA, HHS, DEA and State Ins. Commissions. Not to mention a bunch of varying state regulators and regulations, some of which prohibit the sale of certain insurance and medical products within their borders.
All of these agencies along with their specialized library of regulations were created in the 20th century when we witnessed the most outrageous growth in the cost of government and medical care.
Free-market this ain't.
No matter. Ten years from now, when government is even more involved in medical care, no one will remember any history, this conversation, or this insignificant post. We will gaze with awe, into the eyes of our 'god' politicians and once again supplicate their intervention, crying, "Save us!"
And so it goes.
Kevin Carney...you have to remember that the majority of posters on here were not even alive in the 60's, so to them it's just words. I'm 62...I remember..
New term for the policies of the Bush-Obama administration: "fascialism". A hybrid of Mussolini-style economic control, mixed with Stalinist-style government ownership of the means of production in select industries - specifically health care insurance.
hmmm..fascia...depends on what business you're in...Fascia is strong connective tissue which performs a number of functions, including enveloping and isolating the muscles of the body, providing structural support and protection. It is a product of mesenchyme, a type of connective tissue which develops in embryos before differentiating into numerous other structures in the body. Mesechyme also forms the foundation for bone, cartilage, and important components of the circulatory and lymphatic systems. Fascia is a very important part of the body, and it has three layers, starting with the superficial fascia directly under the skin and ending with subserous fascia, deep inside the body."
Yes, I'm being facetious, but maybe we're talking about developing thick skin ;-)
How about another real life example.
Thirty years ago this month, my father died at the age of 50. He had already put aside Christmas gifts for my brothers and me. He knew he had a heart problem. He was a chiropractor and "gentleman farmer." He came in from the field and died in the house. He had blown a hole through his heart.
I've seen reports that we spend most of our health care dollars in the last few months of life. I hope I can face death like my father.
How many will join me in resolving not to spend the money for my grandchildren's health care to extend my life one week?
Health care for the first 30 years of our lives is pretty minimal. It is up to us baby boomers to really change the system.
What I see today is that the U.S. is not able to learn from the success's of other countries. The arrogant perception that we are the greatest society on Earth and that all should learn from us is turning out to be a sham. It's all well and good to think everyone has the same opportunities and options when you yourself have always had access to all the opportunities and options. The truth is its not true. There is a huge gap between the have's and have not's And many or most of the have's don't care. Access to health care will be unequal until we have single payer or universal health care. It's simple, the rest of the world can do it with out turning into total government run societies. The republicans and blue dog demo's are quick to protect the insurance industry, scream socialism, or that it will cost too much. Yet its fine to run the country into the ground paying for war. Oh I forgot there's lots of money to be made with war, with sick people and with misery in general.
"...there's lots of money to be made with war..."
"War is health of the state" - Randolph Bourne
Well, about diabetes ,HBP,Cholestorol...The AMA & the drug companies keep lowering the bar- so that we all qualify for @ least 2-4 drugs. Why? Because they are in the 'sickness' business. If your not sick--they don't make money. We need to take the profit out of illness and focus on getting our population well. In Sweden people now recieve 2 hrs. a week pay from thier employers if they work out 2 hrs. in a gym. Why? People who work out- miss work less often. What they have discovered is once people start working out they have a tendency to go beyound the 2 hrs. because they 'feel so much better.' Baby Boomers; remember when Kennedy started exercise programs for Grade Schoolers? I do and it worked pretty well, in the schools I went to there might be one or two seriously over wieght kids NOW... Again if illness is the cash cow--there is no real incentive to help people STAY well. If the profit is in people NOT getting ill... the priorities change. Pssst type 2 Diabetes is almost always a self inflicted disease and its almost always self fixable, whereas the damage from insulin use--is forever and runs up even more costs when they have to start him on dialysis or help him deal w/blindness or remove his leg.... Again who wins? Those who sell him the drugs & treatments. The VA is doing him a favor.
John Hays,
Try this out:
1 Make other countries pay their "fair share" for pharmaceuticals. When they don't we pick up the tab.
2 Make other countries pay their "fair share" for research and development. Again, we pick up the tab.
Just those 2 moves would dilute the premiums in this country by billions. And taxes would not increase 1 dime.
3 Restrict malpractice suites. Socialist countries either deny law suits or place a cap. That would significantly reduce the premiums doctors pay now and transfer to their patients.
Again, this would not cost 1 dime yet save us billions.
5 If the costs for injuries exceed this cap, have a collective fund available to pay for this. Still this would save billions in the long run.
With a shifting of malpractice burden doctors would stop unnecessary testing--saving more money.
We constantly talk about the incompetence of our government yet some want to give them more of what they cannot handle in the first place?
Also, the government shuts down businesses, you don't see businesses shutting down governments.
Government regulates corporations, you don't see corporations regulate government.
Anyone who owns a business know the power of government.
No one eats or drinks money. When money stays in natural circulation the system works. When government overtaxes and artificially redistributes money, there is breakdown.
Julie is a realist and she has history on her side. Where single-payor healthcare exists and works so comes an unacceptable life style for many.
Keep in mind, people are desperately trying to come here--health care is only one consideration. We have far too many opportunities to attract people for many reasons. We retain this attraction by keeping government out of our lives as much as possible.
Finally, corporations are not the issue--it is the people who run the corporations. And how many people earn a living from one corporation. How many families are fed from one corporation?
They are not all top executives making millions. There are people making a living from the janitor up. When the rich don't have money--everyone suffers. Today's economy proves that "trickle-down" theory of economics is just Econ 101 working.
Notice also that Oprah can make millions and the liberal media doesn't care --that's Ok but Bill Gates is evil---right! Double standards are everywhere in the Liberal world.
John Voris- Nice reply. Have you got any actual evidence to back up your statements?
What is the "fair share" other countries must pay?
The insurance industry wants tort reform. Will tests go down? I argue no. We will still perform even more tests for two reasons: 1) We get paid for them. 2) We need them to prove "medical necessity" so we can get paid for the actual treatment.
Cecelia Ragsdale-
Excellent points that are missed on most people. In my book, I discuss how diseases are now statistically created. Again, the average voter and health care consumer has no idea. Good job.
"War is health of the state" - Randolph Bourne
"The arrogant perception that we are the greatest society on Earth"
Two statments; first one is irresponsable. I want to see Mr. Bourne in the midle of a war to see how healthy is a war for him. Grandisimo hijo de puta Randolph Bourne. The second one is where northamericans (most) are; in the "greatest society on earth" way of thinking. Wrong thinking.
Isaac, if it were only that easy. You can do everything perfectly in your life, and something catastrophic may still get you. Cancer does NOT play fair (speaking form experience). It sneaks up from behind, and changes your life forever. It picks on anyone.I am an almost 5 year survivor of breast cancer. I was just at a survivor's luncheon yesterday on the Ms. Westerdam at Pier 91...400 lovely women, all ages, all sizes, some just diagnosed, some in treatment, some surviving many years, with 2, 3 bouts of surgery, treatment, etc. Most with insurance, some without (I was without when I was diagnosed).I have known women who lost their jobs, their husbands, their homes, their bank accounts (while still having insurance). Yes, "fair" is not in it's description.
Yes, eat healthy, exercise, stay positive, taking care of yourself is a wonderful thing to do for your health, and it can ward off many things, but my advice is...be prepared, too. And for those who have less, and access to less, it can be doubly devastating.
For those who think that even talking about this is "playing the emotional card"..no, it's playing the reality card.
If we leave things as they are right now, we, the people, will pay through the nose for the havenots, believe me.
I know attention spans aren't what they used to be, but......................try to read this through to the end.
Apparently older sickly people should just die for the good of the whole society. That's not my idea of COMPASSION!
Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel who is an adviser to the president believes that
"communitarianism" should guide decisions on who gets care. He says medical care should be reserved for the non-disabled, not given to those "who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens . . . An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia" (Hastings Center Report, Nov.-Dec. '96).
This is just one example of what advocates of government controlled health care don't seem to want to hear.
He explicitly defends discrimination against older patients: "Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years" (Lancet, Jan. 31).
Dr. David Blumenthal, another key Obama adviser, agrees. He recommends slowing medical innovation to control health spending.
If you want to read the full article, which I'm sure you do not....here is the link
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/deadly_doctors_PU6S0iok2FbS368B7d7mAM
[copy and paste, it's really very easy]
there's that condescending tone again.
I firmly believe that despite what health problems I may have now that I'm 62, that I will not be brought up in front of a "death panel". If you believe that, I would say at the least, you're misguided, and at the most? delusional. I do not believe that any doctor I know would withhold treatment to speed my life along. That's my decision, in my advance directive, in my living will.
First, I do not get my information from The NY Post, nor the Washington Post, nor the Seattle Times, nor most that is posted on the interwebs.
The doctors quoted in that article are not my doctors, and they are not decision makers regarding what will or will not be happening if there is healthcare reform. Maybe they are advisors to Pres. Obama, but I believe my president when he says it ain't gonna happen.
But you go ahead and scare gramma...
and guess what..I read the whole article...education is everything...opinions are not...
for those who would like to rad more about Metsy McGaughey, who write the above article, click here...it's long, but interesting...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betsy_McCaughey
or copy and paste, I know you all know how to do it. :)
and follow it with this, if you dare :
Janet,
You said...
"The doctors quoted in that article are not my doctors, and they are not decision makers regarding what will or will not be happening if there is healthcare reform. Maybe they are advisors to Pres. Obama, but I believe my president when he says it ain't gonna happen.
So...but I believe my president when he says it ain't gonna happen"
So.."what did you say when Bush was your president?" Do you think that Obama is any different than all the presidents of the past?
What if these advisors were Bush's? What would the liberals do then. What would you say?
These advisors influence the tone and direction of the White House.
Wilson can call Obama a liar and he gets days of liberal lambasting. Obama has these people around him as advisors and you don't care? Amazing double standard.
Try to read Julie for what it's meant to do--educate. If you feel fear, then you know what educated historians feel.
excuse me, but I believe Julie is the person with fear. Death panels are not going to happen. You have my permission to come back and tell me "I told you so" when they do.
Believe me, I will read everything that's in the final bill. I may agree with all of it or I may not. No, I did not blindly agree with everything that "W" said, and I don't even agree on everything that Obama says. But on that point I believe him.
Joe Wilson was disrespectful...and he would NEVER have thought about saying anything like that in that setting to any Republican that existed in the last 8 years. I have no use for the Joe Wilsons of the world. Even his Republican cohorts lambasted him. Please !
So.,..you bought Geo. Bush's rhetoric(and his list of advisors...Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Cheney, Rove, ad nauseum), you buy Glenn Beck's rhetoric, you obviously agree with Julie and her "death panels"..why can't you believe the rhetoric that you believe is coming form your president? Same question, asked a different way.
I am sooooooo tired of labels...let's just talk with no accusations. Better yet, let's listen, and stop thinking our way is the only way. I don't feel fear...I don't need to be educated, as you seem to think. I think that perhaps it's you and Julie who need to be educated...how about that? Misinforming is not educating...it's wrong. And neither Betsy McGaughey and Julie are not speaking the truth, in my book. Death panels...seriously? You all really believe that? How can there be an intelligent conversation when you believe that?
I am neither liberal or conservative, left or right. I have always viewed myself as center. If you see it another way, that's your problem, not mine.
This goes nowhere..I feel the way I feel, you believe what you believe. There is no conversation. Now...here's something that you should look into..this Thursday at Seattle U..
http://biznik.com/events/health-reform-entrepreneurship-and-your-business
Sadly, I will be seeing clients that evening, or I'd be there.
William,
Please revisit your history. "Vote for me or get killed," is not an example of democratically held elections.
It seems to boil down to money. Some people don't want to pay for any ones else's care. Some people think that everyone should at LEAST have health care in this society of the have's and have not's. Some people are prone to buying into fear tactics, some people want a rational intelligent debate. In my opinion after all is said and done, it comes down to taking the money and profit out of health care and politics, greed and the endless quest for profit are at the root of why both of these systems are broken. You may deplore the idea that government (supposedly representatives of YOU the people) might need to administer health care so everyone has health care and it doesn't get broken by people profiting off the sick. Or instead we just let private for profit groups of people run the whole health care system deep into the ground, all for money, and so that the big bad government (YOU the people), won't turn you into a prisoner of government. The same people who don't want government running health care also don't want campaign finance reform. Can you smell the money.
John..
"William,
Please revisit your history. "Vote for me or get killed," is not an example of democratically held elections."
could you tell me where that quote came from...was it a presidential candidate in this country?
WOW..that's all you can say? My, my...rendered speechless? I hardly think so..
Michael..remember...this is Biznik...it's about making money....promoting yourself, getting those clients, referrals, etc. I absolutely agree with the premise, just don't agree with the lack of compassion and giving back that I sometimes feel exists here.
again, i ask, where is the compassion when the government burdens the people with an overwhelming tax burden, promising to take care of us.......but giving us nothing for the amount we dump into it!!!!!
That is not compassion janet!!!!!! you can play the compassion card all you want.....you're trying to sell a porcupine by calling it a teddy bear, calling a porcupine a teddy bear doesn't make it a teddy bear.
Entitlement mentality isn't what made this country prosperous. But it is destroying prosperity. Prosperous nations take care of their needy, poor nations do not. Prosperous nations have the means to provide clean water and spend tons on protecting the environment by treating sewage etc......poor nations absolutely do not!
we don't even leave a stray injured dog on the side of the road, or one to go hungry, we have places and people willing to help them! Poor nations do not!
Politicians have successfully used the tactic of DIVIDE AND CONQUER......they divide between classes...genders....sexual preference....race..and have us fighting amongst ourselves...too distracted to notice their failures and greed for power and money.
Janet,
You said brought one of my statements forward...
"William,
Please revisit your history. "Vote for me or get killed," is not an example of democratically held elections."
Then you said... could you tell me where that quote came from...was it a presidential candidate in this country?
Janet, please read all of the comment before passing judgement. This is an issue here with some who post here.
William was making the point that...
Since it is government that participates in:
*Mass murder, genocide persecution and imprisonment by governments of:Germany, Iraq, Lybia, Italy, Japan, China, etc. by democratically elected leaders.
That is sufficient reason not to trust democratic governments.
While I may agree that trusting government is not always the most efficacious approach, dictatorships are not the product of democratically elected leadership either.
No president said anything Janet nor was it a quote from anyone other than myself.
Julie and John...we see things a different way...and that's all there is to it. To coin an old phrase...no one died to make you the expert. I feel that you're wrong. You feel that I'm wrong. You have OPINIONS, not truth, I have OPINIONS...again, not truth..it's emotional on both sides. I see no need to continue this further, as for both of us , I'm sure, it's like beating one's head against one's wall.
Have a great, sunny week.
Jeez! I left for a few days to attend a friend's 50th birthday, and re-joined the discussion thread, only to see the same cyclical and recursive dialogue. It's healthy and good to read this robust response, but keep it civil, O.K.? However, it shows me that there is a great deal of frustration, anger. and fear among the Biznik crowd. Janet is right that we are all offering opinion, not truth.
As you are all aware, there is a great deal more fiction than fact coming from our politicians. Can we all agree that something needs to be done about this healthcare situation, and that many of our congresspersons are too beholden to corporate interests to ever get an honest answer from them? As I stated in my article, I would have loved for the "private market," or "free enterprise" system to solve this, instead of government. However, let me state, unequivocally, humans are greedy, selfish, and make a mockery of our greatest asset: free will. We know that bombs will kill, yet we make them. We know that oil is an environmental poison, yet we cannot get off its tit. We know that thousands are dying every day from a lack of access to good healthcare, yet we watch this pathetic debate by our "Leaders," and succumb to the meanness and lies of radio zealots like a bunch of dull sycophants.
For historical perspective, a number of senators who are decrying the Obama's administration's brave and heroic attempt to solve the healthcare crisis as "Socialism", are the same persons who screamed "Socialism" when the Bush Administration, on the advice of Henry Paulson, bailed out the banks first. Oh the irony of it all!
Duh!!!!!!! Government bailout of the banks was and is socialistic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
OMG! It's not about the party!!!!! If you are advocating more government control........you are IN FACT advocating SOCIALISTIC governing!!!!!
Well said Matthew. it is important to keep this debate civil. It is a hard place to be in, when you can't trust your elected leaders to lead for the best interest of the people and you also can't trust the market and its leaders to not take advantage for the sack of greed and profit. Where has the sense of we the people for the people by the people gone. Can we get back there, to that place where there was a sense of caring for the welfare of the society from the bottom up.
Socialism...Scary stuff! For instance our libraries! Our schools! Our roads! Our parks! Unemloyment benefits! Social Security! Medicare! Our Armed Forces! Whoa--seriously scary-- everyone of them! If you've ever driven on a PUBLIC road or taken unemployment benefits or went to a PUBLIC school or checked out a book from a PUBLIC library...you are being hypocritical. I do know that if you get sick and don't have health care or your out of pocket is too high because your sick & can't work...you get no aid until your assets are below $30,000. So You get to sell your home, fork over your 401K, your boat and/or motorhome...So basically you can keep your car a a few thousand dollars. You can work and be responsible for 40 yrs. and lose everything over an illness. So the incentive to be responsible, buy a house...You would be better off to be a slacker and hit the emergency room whenever you get sick and let the taxpayers foot the bill. Because face it if you can work your butt off for 40 yrs. and wind up w/nothing except Welfare and a crappy apartment or you can slack off, just working when you have too and play for 40 yrs. and wind up with Welfare & a crappy apartment....Do the math. If your answer is no Welfare...well, many revolutions came about because the Havenots got sick of the Haves being ruthless(their lack of compassion!)--so they rose up and killed the Haves. Money cannot protect you from the fallout of mass poverty, just the diseases that spread like wildfire among the poor eventually spread to the wealthy as well...Those who do not know history are bound to repeat it.
To repeat what I'm talking about, due to selective hearing of some sort, I say......AGAIN......FEDERAL GOVERNMENT must be limited.....STATES RIGHTS restored, meaning local government. Socialists always bring up the funding of roads and services etc.....when they argue for more taxes.
So, again, I ask..........HOW MUCH IS ENOUGH FOR THE GOVERNMENT to run these programs? We are approaching 50% of our income going to the government.......it isn't enough.....never will be enough.....and they still use these vital services to black mail us into voting for more taxes.....so they can secretly funnel the money to their pet projects for which they would never get support from the voters to fund.
Yes, history tends to repeat itself........the average life span of a democracy is about 200 years....we have already outlived that....the constant pursuit of that euphoric magical place Utopia is always what eventually destroys every democracy.
My answer is not no welfare............my answer is helping those really in need, and helping those in need to help themselves. Not a blanket welfare system for all. My answer is we help each other...........
This dysfunctional need and yearning for a paternalistic or maternalistic government entity to take care of us is sick, it's for emotional stunted people who refuse to grow up.
Julie..you are one person, one opinion. I was going to leave this alone, but I need to say this. Who died and made you the right person? How dare you insult the rest of us who do not believe what you might believe ! "This selective hearing"...this "dysfunctional, this "emotional stunted people who refuse to grow up" attitude gets you nowhere. It's insulting. We may even agree on some things, but your attitude towards others stinks.
NO ONE gave you all the answers, and made your opinions superior to others. If this is what I get from Biznik members, I don't want it.
How dare you !!
I'm done.
Friends, turn off the lights, the party is over!
silverio
To: Cabela's California Customers From: Cabela's Communications Subject: California Assembly Bill 962 Date: Sept. 22, 2009
We are writing to inform you of pending legislation that will restrict purchases of handgun ammunition in California and will terminate our ability to service your needs for certain products.
On Friday, Sept. 11, the California Assembly passed Assembly Bill 962, by a 44-31 vote.
Among other regulations, AB 962 would:
• Ban all mail-order and Internet sales of handgun ammunition. • Prohibit the retail sale, the offer for sale or the display of handgun ammunition in a manner that allows ammunition to be accessible to a purchaser without assistance of a vendor or employee.
Bye Janet. We'll miss you.
It's amazing how raw everyone's nerves are around this subject... It's hard to debate the issues through all the emotion.
The Patriot Act gave the government the power to access your medical records, tax records, and information about the books you buy or borrow without probable cause.
It also gave the government the power to break into your home and conduct secret searches without telling you for weeks, months, or indefinitely.
Your senator serves on the Senate Judiciary Committee and has a critical role to play in reforming the Patriot Act.
It’s absolutely crucial that whatever legislation emerges from the Judiciary Committee embraces the strong measures Senator Feingold has put forth by: Protecting the privacy of records by reining in the government’s use of National Security Letters to collect the records of innocent people far removed from an actual terrorism suspect. Protecting humanitarian activities by preventing prosecution of people who work with or for charities that give humanitarian aid in good faith to war torn countries. Protecting First Amendment rights by requiring the government to convince a court that a National Security gag order is necessary. Protecting the privacy of communications by amending last year's sweeping FISA Amendments Act to better protect Americans' phone calls and emails. Strong measures like these can help finally end the damage done by the Patriot Act. Events are moving quickly. Our chances for real reform are best if a strong bill emerges from the Senate Judiciary Committee of which Senator Feinstein is a key member.
Contact Senator Feinstein now. Urge strong support for Patriot Act reforms.
Our best chance of reforming the Patriot Act is making sure the Senate Judiciary Committee supports Senator Feingold's JUSTICE Act. Action on this critical issue could take place at any moment. Please contact Senator Feinstein now.
Sincerely,
Anthony D. Romero Executive Director American Civil Liberties Union
No health insurance company should have to lose one cent of their billions in profits just because sick Americans need health care. http://bit.ly/kNKpA
Berry,
"It's amazing how raw everyone's nerves are around this subject... It's hard to debate the issues through all the emotion."
You are right!! With some here politics is a religion and for them--"don't let the facts muddle my opinion is how they operate." It's also tough when the very few don't read your whole comment and still attack, ignoring what you did agree on.
Ideologists and economists who created former Soviet economic system believed that the problem with capitalism is that produces for profit instead of for people's needs- Does it sound familiar?
Soviet Politburo started to build a system that produced directly for people's needs and not at all for profit. Sometimes there were periods when it was argued that the Soviet worker and manager would work because of their enthusiasm for the revolution and their ideological commitment- “Paying taxes is patriotic” Does it sound familiar?
The Soviets realized that markets principles violated Marxist ideology; and there was only one system of organization possible, and a system of central planning was born-a system in which all decisions about what people needed were decided from the top.
And finally why would an American pick a Government of central planning and one that practices the redistribution of wealth over a Government that facilitates a free market economy and personal liberty? It’s kind of fascinating when you think about it.
From New York Conservative: http://www.newyorkconservative.com/?p=502
No real world experience. If you are young, for the most part as there are exceptions to every rule, you vote on untested ideology, you have no real world experience that age naturally brings in which to make a sound or valid judgment. At the University age you are perhaps heavily influenced by Professors who also do not have the real world experience of competing in the private sector and yet are full of theoretical ideas. The intentions of the young are pure enough but without the experience that life can bring can be heavily misguided.
Do as I say not as I do. If you know how to hide your wealth or avoid paying your just deserts you will also have no problem with Government central planning, a perfect and very unethical example is someone like Charles Rangel. He knows what is best for everyone yet refuses to abide by his own standards of paying his fair share.
Not able to compete. If you’re a failure and cannot break into the system and compete you would be more inclined for Government control. If you have nothing and aren’t going to work to get anything why not?
Throwing away history and its lessons for the sake of ideology. If you read American history you will see that we have gone through many turbulent times and the economy has time and again risen to be greater and stronger than it was before. Misguided interference by the Government may have prolonged some of the crises but none have ever yet brought the Republic to her knees. We will see how this one goes.
Culture of Entitlements. Americans and the newer immigrants to this Nation have been overly spoiled with entitlements and just have come to expect that the Government will take care of them.
The idea that because one aspect of society is socialized, like health care does not automatically lead to the notion that we will be come a socialist country. There are many examples in the world that show quite clearly that it is possible to socialize certain aspects of a system with out the whole system becoming socialized. Things are rarely all or nothing.
John, Thank you for your affirmation.
Silverio, your "...turn off the lights,..." comment made me chuckle.
Let me rephrase what I said above.
It's hard to get to the "meat" of the issue through all the "fat" of emotions.
Does the manner (and medium) in which we converse need health reform?
Julie, read the Constitution. You are spouting antiAmerican rhetoric in the hopes of saving some tax dollars.
I hear the 50% tax argument a lot. It's B.S. If you are so concerned about paying taxes then pay more expenses. Hire some employees, do something other than ask for charity.
You want something for nothing. You don't actually want to do anything other than your business and never pay taxes.
How else can I support you? Can my tax dollars provide you some copyright protections? Can my tax dollars build you a few more roads?
What can we do for you so you don't have to pay your taxes?
Be a free spirit all you want to, but don't claim my government has done anything to you with my tax dollars.
David honey....focus, eye contact here....
Again.............try paying attention to my words here..............I believe the government provided services such as police, fire, roads, etc....should be the responsibility of the local state government. My argument is against Federal Government's abuse of its power. Not once have I said I don't want to pay taxes, or don't believe anyone should have to pay taxes. I have said there should be a limit to the burden...what the hell is your limit?
Did you catch all of that? Try reading the whole thing, and actually absorb it into your brain, I know, it may hurt a little, but just try.
P.S.
I would support a bill that would require one to pass a civics history, world history and U.S. history exam....and prove your ability to list and define the various forms of government...before being allowed to vote on anything............and make it a pre-requisite for anyone body before they may run for any office. How do you like them apples?
For some one so unfamiliar with our government you have a lot of requirements.
You are in uncharted waters.
Show me where there are any requirements to provide police, roads, or fire department.
We pay taxes to form a more perfect Union.
I have no limits. My duty is to my family and my government.
Read the Constitution, and Bill of Rights.
"The idea that because one aspect of society is socialized, like health care does not automatically lead to the notion that we will be come a socialist country."
Federal, state, and local government spending will be 42 percent of U.S. gross domestic product in 2009, according to data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. More than 4 out of every 10 dollars of everything produced in America now gets channeled through governments. If we put Obama’s proposed healthcare government run program into the game, the USA government spending could radically change our country as we know it.
David, are you smoking something? Rhymes with Whack? I could have a conversation with the wall right here next me and it would make more sense.
P.S., maybe I'm just approaching this all wrong, here, let me try this.....
....Well.....you're just a big fat doo doo head! I know you are...........but what am I? My dad! My dad!!!! my dad could beat up your dad!!!! Yeah, and-and-and-you're stupid!
Julie: I think that you should leave this discussion thread because you continue to devolve into personal attacks, getting progressively nastier and nastier. As a therapist, I try to empathize with my clients to gain a better understanding as to their pain. You're a portrait artist, looking to capture the emotion and character of your clients. It pains me to see you so angry and parsimonious with your replies to other Biznik thinkers. As a parent, I would be terrified to allow you access to my children's inner emotional space. "A photograph should make you laugh or even cry; it should make you feel something." All you seem to feel is anger and hatred. Switch the channel or sign off, please!
Ummm, angry? I made myself laugh, almost peed my pants!
I understand, humor escapes angry lefty whackos, can't say I'm surprised.
But, gee, thanks for the free therapy! You have a really nice day!
That's alright.
I happen to be a fiscal conservative that voted for Reagan twice, Bush Senior once, and Bush Junior twice. Then I voted for Obama, the same as I voted for Clinton when Bush Senior raised taxes.
This is very simple. The gentleman who pointed out that our government channels 4 out of 10 dollars is correct. We have massive public works projects in this country. The internet is a government project taken globally.
Our government does many things right. Health Care happens to be one of those things they could do much better than for profit insurance plans. Our health care system is a disaster. It is set up for people who have the money to pay for treatment. Any one can come to this country and get top of the line treatment for a number of maladies.
This is where people get confused. They think because we have the best Health Care in the world that care is available to them. You pay your premiums and take your chances. A person may think they are covered, but it depends on the policy and the day. Honestly a secretary may be making your medical decisions based on a policy and procedure manual.
Under the system we currently have you are at the mercy of your Health Insurance company. The Republican party has been harping on tort reform, but that is a red herring. It is next to impossible to successfully sue a doctor or hospital. The problem with rising malpractice premiums is the insurance companies. Insurance companies settle out of court. They have no reason not to settle. All they have to do is raise premiums.
If you look at the statistics of money spent on Health Insurance there would be a savings if all people were covered by a single payer system. No new revenue would be needed.
The problem is the shift of the job base back to the government.
Banks are an industry outside of government but I think we all know government and banking are related. Insurance and government are extremely related. When we look at our money supply we are looking at our government. The auto industry is protected by government standards and let's not even go into oil as a matter of National Security.
What happens when we take away the regulations to banking? There have been two major economic scandals related to banking in my life time. !980s and 2007 both had major market corrections when our government failed to monitor banking diligently.
It's just a fact that the government is up in all of our business. It's the job we pay them to do.
In my opinion any compassion that comes out of business is government mandated. At the same time government does corporate bidding. I think a separation is needed, but please let's leave our health in the hands of the compassionate sector. That would be our government.
Matthew,
Sorry I had to intervene.
You said...
"Julie: I think that you should leave this discussion thread because you continue to devolve into personal attacks, getting progressively nastier and nastier. As a therapist, I try to empathize with my clients to gain a better understanding as to their pain."
I agree with the spirit of your observation but notice that Julie never starts anything--she is always in reaction.
While she offers sound sources in the form of facts and pointing to actual history, some here retorted in emotional diatribe clearly without understanding her position. They argued against positions she never took and attempted to paraphrase statements she never made.
While we all have the right to express an opinion, some are under the illusion that they have equal value--they don't.
So, how long do you tolerate this without getting emotional yourself? All I can come up with is to ignore them.
What do you suggest?
OK John I went back through the thread looking for facts. I'm sorry I see opinions.
I see opinions that are unAmerican in nature.
Again our constitution calls for a common defense and promoting the public welfare. Bush sent a standing army to invade foriegn soil. That is much different from providing health care.
Health care can reasonably be argued as a duty of our government. The standing army is specifically restricted.
David,
I don't approve of this "he said-she said" rhetoric. I will respond to you but I don't want to debate how to debate.
Nevertheless, you proved my point.
Julie mentioned many facts here are just two:
1 12 million people here in America can't afford health insurance or can't get it..........why aren't they focusing on those 12 million?
2 And California is effectively bankrupt.
These are not opinions.
The number of 12 million is an estimate but it is one agreed to by most national sources. Obviously the exact number is not the issue.
Politicians here use this information in debates. They don't debate if California is having financial problems but what to do about it.
She also sites web locations as additional criteria. So you were very selective in your reading which she mentioned by the way.
3 If you are going to use a word like "un-American" please define it. Leaving it this way reduces the value of your statement. Actually, standing for a free economic market is American. That is what she was promoting. We all know that the United States is a mixed economy with both capitalism and socialism present. That is also a fact.
4 Fact: Our constitution calls for many things. Defense and promoting welfare is only 2 of hundreds of issues covered in our federal documents including independent liberties.
5 Fact: the legislature funds war. While a president has the power to invade a country, retaining that possession is impossible without this funding. So, Bush cannot constitutionally have a "standing army" over time anywhere without legislative cooperation.
6 Yes, health care and war are different--so?
7 To say that health care is a governmental duty is no where to be found. Anyone can say, "... it can be reasonably argued," to take almost any position. That does not make it a fact--that is an opinion.
This is a vacuous statement. But if you find value in it, then everyone else has the same right, leaving you without much power.
These are not debatable issues. What to do with them is clearly open to discussion.
We all have the right to have an opinion but they do not all have the same value.
David, there is structure to debating. Defining questionable use of words, defining your position and staying focused on the appropriate criteria are just a few considerations.
Next, is part of everything...
The Afghanistan war is getting attention again. And, it all adds up to an incredible opportunity for the anti-war movement to really prevent further escalation or even stop the war.
In fact, today the New York Times reported that the Obama administration is debating whether a troop reduction is the more sensible path. This echoes a similar report from the Washington Post about a smaller military, not a larger one. Police officials in Afghanistan are saying that more troops will be counterproductive because the U.S. will be seen as an occupying force.
Why? Because polls show 75% of Democrats oppose the war. Indeed, only 34% of all Americans think the Afghanistan war is worth fighting. This means your neighbors agree that this war is not worth fighting.
And, these polls are resonating with politicians facing re-election. Democrats are worried that in 2010 their base will not be active in their campaigns, will not donate to their re-election and will not show up on Election Day. Survival is always on the minds of politicians and when you are the party in power, off-year elections are scary. Not only are anti-war liberals like Senator Russ Feingold saying they want an exit strategy but centrist Democrats like senators Diane Feinstein and Carl Levin are opposing troop increases. Opposition in Congress is growing as the bad news from Afghanistan comes home.
This is a tremendous opportunity for two things:
Expand our base of support. Let your friends and neighbors know that there is a concerted effort to end the war and that they should be part of it. Urge them to come to Voters for Peace and sign up. Buy the video Re-think Afghanistan and invite your friends and neighbors over to watch it. You can order the video here.
Politicians will be listening to their base more than usual. They are running scared and the Afghanistan War is one of the major reasons for their fear. This is the time to let your elected officials know you oppose the war and that it will be critical in the upcoming elections. Click here to send President Obama and your elected officials in Congress a message opposing the Afghanistan War.
Finally, on October 5 I will be participating in demonstrations opposing the Afghanistan War at the White House. Please join us in this action highlighting the end of the 8th year of war and the beginning of the 9th. Now is the time when acting to oppose this war can have the most impact. Click here to get information and sign up to participate.
With the U.S. economy collapsing, unemployment rising, foreclosures on the increase, deficits rapidly rising at all levels of government - the U.S. cannot afford the mistaken war in Afghanistan. Give voice to the majority of Americans who oppose escalation and oppose this war by taking action now. Click here to take action.
Thanks for your support and for taking action.
Sincerely,
Kevin Zeese Executive Director VotersForPeace.US
Silverio,
Wait--I thought all this was a done deal. Reducing troops everywhere was Obama's stand during the election. Bush has been hammered for years over this and it is still under discussion?
Exist strategies are old news. He was very clear that further discussion was not essential.
What's up?
John I'm sorry to say I did read the links. The New York Post piece is an opinion.
anti-American is a reference to people who claim the greatest working democracy in the world an enemy to be feared.
Now you would like for me to address your comment point by point which is possible, there is a lot there to debate. I simply asked for Julie or you to read the Constitution before forging ahead with a rant against the United States government. You chose to ignore that.
The Constitution says provide for the Common Defense and Promote the Public Welfare. A defifinition of Public Welfare is in fact welfare n. 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being.
Come to think of it let's put in the Preamble,
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
You want to debate where thre is nothing to debate.
David
"John I'm sorry to say I did read the links. The New York Post piece is an opinion.'
The 12 million uninsured number comes from many sources
California is still in a crisis.
These are not debatable opinions.
Rather you are selective again.
There is no debating with such inconsistencies and unwillingness to stay focused.
I have done all I can.
You don't want to debate anyone rather for you its about "being right" regardless of facts.
So, David--You Are Right!
There--now you can sleep better.
Funny.
The figure being promoted today is 5 million people who are to be focused on.
If you read the report it states an estimate of families that make more $50K or more can afford health insurance and choose not to purchase it. It costs me about one thousand dollars a month to purchase health insurance for my family. That's $12K per year, a person in Congress costs about $7K per year for a family plan of top of the line insurance. My coverage at one thousand dollars a month, $12K per year, is limited coverage with a pretty high deductible.
The report doesn't even touch the under insured.
John this is not a debate. You are quoting propaganda, which I understand. I understand the logic and reasoning. What I have never understood is Americans who prefer to prop up the insurance industry, or banking, or autos, or oil, in the name of some American values.
Corporate welfare to me is unAmerican and may be anti-American in it's purest form.
I can go on for a long time about insurance or finance companies and how they need to get out of the middle of things. I think you would agree. In this particular case I prefer the government run health care system to the insurance companies.
Insurance company Health Care plan that I have absolutely no control over or a government plan that I can vote in or out according to the membership of Congress?
I've made my choice which is my right to do. I favor our government over corporations. What do you chose?
Matthew,
Congratulations for writing an article that gets people talking. I do not agree with you, but always enjoy seeing people reacting passionately about an issue even if I think they're idiots.
We do need health care reform in this country in the worst way. Obama wasn't my first choice for President, but once elected I became his #1 fan. He's the President and I want him to be successful. Our country depends on him.
He is without a doubt the most ill-prepared person to take office in my lifetime. His lack of executive experience is undeniable and he has a big learning curve ahead of him. On health care, he just plain screwed up.
There are so many areas of agreement on health care reforms that could have been easily passed, however, the President provided no leadership and simply instructed Pelosi and Reid to get "something" through Congress. Perhaps given the concerns on his rather radical past acquaintances, he didn't want to attach his name directly to a move to socialize medicine in America. Equally dumbfounding was his lack of interest in reducing the cost of health care while reorganizing everything else. No tort reform, that would have of course offended his backers in the trial lawyer community.
Instead, he depends on a bunch of empty promises from the pharmaceutical industry that they'll keep cost down. Immeasurable and completely without accountability, just the way government likes it.
I think portability and no exclusion for prior illness are no-brainers. Illness is most often not a matter of choice and poor decisions so let's not let health insurance companies cherry pick clients like they were selling car insurance. While we're at it, why not actually let capitalism work and stop denying health insurance companies to compete nationally?
For those of you that don't know it, everyone in America can get health care by walking into an emergency room. The hospital then writes off the expense and we all pay for it. There must be a better way that doesn't involve socializing the whole system that is the world's envy.
For those of you that want to be saved from the greedy insurance companies, tell your Congressman to stop regulating away competition. It's amazing what happens to prices when that happens. Tell them to pay for or subsidize health insurance contracts for the poor and negotiate the best rate in the free market to do so. Don't create another bureaucracy to recreate what exist today.
Hi Richard:
Thanks for your post. We are in agreement on a number of key issues, including the emergency room scenario that you present, portability of healthcare, no exclusions, and tort reform. Although, I think that tort reform needs to be taken up separately. If anything, put the blame on a divided Congress for the failures so far, not Obama. With Blue Dog Dems., rigorous partisanship by the Elephants, and Democratic Liberals from Mars, Congress has ruined a great initiative.
I just don't think that our health care system is working. Since writing this piece and speaking with many folks out there, the absence of a safety net (i.e. public option or some government health care provision) is terrifying to them. You and I can work for 40 years, pay our insurance premiums, and develop a rare disease that will absolutely bankrupt us. That's wrong.
I have great health care, and resent the hell out of it. As an avid athlete and foodie, I am quite careful with my health. I have low body fat, and a resting pulse of 50. I work out six times a week, and eschew any form of fast food or other crap. No smoking or excessive drinking. Yet I pay exorbitant premiums to an insurance company in the hopes that one day, if I really need it, I can rely on it. I'm not so sanguine as to think that Regence has got my back.
Listen, people need to take personal responsibility for their terrible food intake and sedentary practices. Let's give everyone a baseline physical rating, and then set healthcare on the basis of incentives for staying well. That's American. The top dogs get the most benefit.
However, I'm charitable enough to want my fellow American covered for the horrible health crisis that may befall them. So, we need a better system to help those folks. I'm sick and tired of seeing homeless drunks sucking on the tit of public services like the fire department to transport them to the hospital, and then care administered to that person because that's what they do at the emergency room. Enough of that crap.
Open your mind to the success of healthcare in Europe and Canada for those who are not treating their bodies like a dump. And after the banking debacle, I really take exception with your notion of further deregulation. Show me how to rout out greed and corruption in the American Capitalist model, and I'll vote for all the deregulation possible.
We tried it the other way for eight years, and nearly fell into the abyss of another Great Depression. This down turn has been bad enough, don't ya think? Did your team turn in an "A" effort during their 8 year run? I didn't think so.
Regards,
Matt
I don't know if you have read my blog article regarding a Canadian entrepreneur's perspective on health care. But I wanted to acknowledge the importance of the discussion that has been going on in this conversation. I particularly liked reading "Capitalism with Compassion."
What I think would be helpful to my American cousins is an exploration of ways to improve health care delivery that speaks to the issue of the importance of wellness as a means of managing health care costs.
Here are some ideas that I would like to share with all of you.
Experiment with different ways of delivering health care under a public payer option. For example, in Ontario, doctors are being encouraged to join large group practices and instead of providing a transactional model of paying on a fee for service basis, the government is giving these large practices a finite amount of money each year. They are also encouraged to get their patient base to sign up to be covered by the practice. This is a capitation method of budgeting for health care. The doctors join together with physiotherapists, naturopaths, acupuncturists, massage therapists, aroma therapists, and other health team members. They are given a mandate to increase the wellness of the population under their purview. In smaller cities in Ontario with not much population migration, this can be a pretty effective way of managing a community's overall health while keeping costs down.
Establish a fee for services schedule that rewards doctors for getting better patient results related to major health issues. For example a doctor or practice would earn higher transactional fees for getting patients to lose weight, decrease blood pressure, improve stress test results, quit smoking, and so on. This type of incentive based pay schedule would encourage doctors to educate their patient population on wellness strategies, keep proper patient records, and because of the need to do tracking electronically, automate the patient record keeping process. After all, the physician won't get the higher fee without the reports.
Provide higher transactional income for doctors (fee for service) who practice in underserviced areas of the country. A fee schedule that is uniform regardless of geography does not serve remote communities well.
Provide incentives for increasing the use of technology in diagnosis, treatment and patient record keeping. These incentives could be in the form of tax breaks, or bonus payments through the public payer.
Encourage hospitals to do outreach within poorer demographic areas within their communities. These outreach programs would receive public payer support. The goal of the outreach would not be as much about treatment as it would be about wellness education.
Put as much information on line as possible so that people can reach through the Internet to find it. Create a telehealth team to respond to health inquiries and build a knowledge base as an online resource.
I am sure many of you can think of other ways that health care improvements can be made that don't just involve DNR orders.
If we are talking about compassionate capitalism we should also be talking about creative capitalism when it comes to health care delivery.
John, till next discussion...
John for Healthcare Czar!!! Fantastic plan. You hit all the important points, and even found help for poorer Americans. How does Canada help out those with poor education, bad eating habits, and over-all bad health hygiene? Also, is there anything for illegal folks? Thanks for your thoughtful and timely remarks!
Best,
Matt
Nearly all have argued around the necessity of providing medical care or controlling certain tests to be healthy. If we could show that the people who receive gold, silver or bronze medals in a race live longer than those who finish last, could we make those finishing last live longer by giving them a medal?
Some chiropractors (myself included) were offering a capitation fee agreement for patients in the 1980s. The insurance commissioner ruled it was offering insurance and shut us down.
If you want to stretch your thinking, I have now made my books into podcasts. Download and listen at your leisure. http://blogtalkradio.com/draffolter Listen to: Exposed How Politics Increased the Cost of Health Care in America
and
Exposed The "Science" of Medicine and the Dollars It Generates
We can't reform health care until we understand the fundamentals. Each podcast lasts about 40 minutes.
While all the discussion about health insurance reform has been interesting and healthy, it still comes back to a currently unfair and broken system that needs to be changed completely. Single payer is the fair and equitable system. The fact is when there is a profit motive involved in providing health care, greed has and will always trump empathy, equity and social justice. We have to take the profit motive out, so the poor, the ill, and those who are being preyed upon can not be easy used for profit. There are enough areas in this capitalist system for people and companies to make vast profits, it should not be from misery, and ill health. The public option is a step in the right direction, and if it is not yet the time for single payer then the public option must be included or we are deluding ourselves and no reform will happen. The status-quo will continue. and the suffering will go on and more people will have no insurance and more people will go bankrupt so that some small segments of the society can reap huge profits and power unabated.
By the way this whole debate is not about health care, it is about money and who gets how much.
Michael & Len:
Thanks for the comment, as it summarizes the philosophical piece of the discussion quite nicely.
Len - I got confused with the discussion thread, and wanted to nominate you to be our Health Care Czar. Thanks for your great comments and ideas.
Matt
While all the discussion about health insurance reform has been interesting and healthy, it still comes back to a currently unfair and broken system that needs to be changed completely. Single payer is the fair and equitable system.
I suspect most of the people in this discussion could probably meet face-to-face at the next WTO riots. Good grief, get a grip on life.
I will repeat my comment the last time I got involved in a discussion on this topic. Never before have I heard people speak with such authority on a topic they obviously know nothing about.
There's plenty of room for healthy discussion on this topic just sticking to facts.
OMG I just realized it's the same discussion.
Joe, take a look at per capita spending on health in the US versus western Europe. We already spend publicly what they do on health care and then double it in private spending. Do you think maybe we have a cost problem? Insurance companies don't make much. Where's all the spending then.
Litigation that promotes unecessary and expensive testing. Another biggie Barry pointed out, end of life heath care. guess what, we need death panels.
A doctor friend of mine also added that if you go to a single payer system, you need to put doctors on salary. Let's find a politician that's willing to promote that.
so, Mr. Gabel..am I understanding you to say that you DO know the answers, and everyone else on here doesn't know what they're talking about? Just askin', because that's how it's coming across. Opinions are just that...opinions...we all have 'em. And I disagree with some of yours, and that's my right.(you would disagree with some of mine, too) This is an emotional topic for everyone. Please don't be condescending in your posts.
Oh...and where is your information/facts to back up that statement that "insurance companies don't make much"? If you're gonna throw that out there, give us numbers, please. Exactly how much are they not making?
And, yes, I suspect this discussion will go on for a long time...
I did not offer a solution and do believe that the way we provide for health care for the poor is inefficient. I don't hink it's fair to conclude that I believe I have the answer, I don't have an good answer. I just don't look to answers from conspiracy theorist that believe that capitalism is evil and the government is controlled by the ultra wealthy for answers.
The last time I checked it out insurance companies were making 2-3% on sales. That's terrible. The pharmaceuticles that the President said he had come to some agreement with are making 10x that. Show me your stats before you decide it's one big conspiracy.
Let's have a cup of coffee together. Maybe we can solve this problem.
I suspect most of the people in this discussion could probably meet face-to-face at the next WTO riots. Good grief, get a grip on life.
I will repeat my comment the last time I got involved in a discussion on this topic. Never before have I heard people speak with such authority on a topic they obviously know nothing about. Motorhome Insurance Uk
wow... lol..... Bottom line is go check out what the economic experts are saying like "Harry Dent".... http://www.hsdent.com/ ... He's been right on target and he has been recommended by a few self made multi millionaires I know.....
Hi April:
Thanks for your post at long last:) Harry S. Dent. What can I say about the guy who predicted at the beginning of the year that the Dow would end up around 5,000? I invested heavily in 1-800-MUTUALS, a company that liked what Dent said about generational investing, or predicting what would be the dominate trends in society, and making investment choices to match the trends. He has been dead wrong. So, I guess we disagree on Mr.Dent and his soothsaying.
Matthew,
It's been along time since I wrote in this post--still a hot topic I see.
OK--You want fair?? I'll tell you fair.
1 At the last survey, we are responsible for the majority of pharmaceutical research and development--for the world.
Guess--what---the world refuses to pay their Fair Share.
2 These pharmaceuticals are also made available for world consumption--guess what--they refuse to pay their fair share.
3 Liberal judges have allowed unwarranted and outrageous financial awards by blaming corporations for everything regardless of the culpability of the victim. Is this fair?
This has caused medical malpractice to skyrocket and the doctors need to charge us citizens more. Is this fair?
4 The liberals have purposely let illegals enter this country from the south--why--it is an automatic future voting machine for the Democrats. Is this fair or political manipulation?
This also causes even more burden on the health industry.
Oh--and when someone from England wants in--they are scrutinized and made to go through the wringer--and sent back at the slightest infraction--hmmm.
According to the television program "60 Minutes," in San Diego 70% of the patients who enter their hospitals are not insured. A legal citizen had to file bankruptcy after his son was in the emergency for 20 minutes and 3 hours in recovery. His bill was over hundred thousand dollars. But 70% were treated and payed---NOTHING! That's fair?
5 The corruption is with those who endorsed loose laws and "give-away--programs." It is disgusting!
Well, didn't they know someone would pay down the road? Of course, now they don't care because their retired and living in the Hampton's.
6 With United States citizens flipping the bill for the rest of the world--yea were broke--AND THEY STILL WANT MORE?? But they don't care how broke we are--couldn't care less.
People need to read articles printed in Europe to get a better perspective of what's fair here. We are the laughingstock of the world because we are willing to destroy our financial base so "we can feel good" about ourselves.
(By the way, my information came from a retired executive in the insurance business. He saw this coming 25 years ago.)
Bravo
The U.S. pays through the private sector the same amount as socialized European countries as a percent of GNP for health care. Then guess what, we pay about the same amount through the public sector. Our spending for health care is double what our European friends are dishing out. What's wrong with this picture? John's right.
Richard,
Thanks for the confirmation.
The younger crowd doesn't seem to grasp their mortality. These liberals want to tax the wealthy today into extinction yet, they have just lived half their lives. What's in store for them down the road? Many of them I suggest, will be qualifying to join that very club making over $250.000 in a decade or two.
Wait till their parents try to pass on their legacy to them. The liberals today are calling for higher capital gains taxes and by the time they receive that inheritance, they will be facing their very own tax "upgrade."
They will have to sell mom and dad's house just to pay the taxes.
But today----they feeeel great don't they?
The sad thing is--they are being used by politicians our age and they can't see it.
I'd love to continue this discussion John, but I've got to run down to Occupy Seattle and be a political tool/fool.
Gee John, you are such a devotee of the top 1%, huh? Please go on and protect the needs of the ultra wealthy. They have been such engines of job creation over the past 12 years with all their tax breaks. Oh, wait, didn't Pat Buchanan write in the American Conservative magazine that the GOP's notion of supply side economics has led to exactly 0 net jobs!? And I can only hope that congress votes to cut your medicare and social security because I am only 50, and fully expect that you and your generation will use up all the remaining resources. If you are fortunate enough to have great resources, try to have a little humility, and appreciate that fully 88% of Americans are struggling, through no fault of their own. Bush and his cadre signed us up for two unpaid wars, tax cuts for the most fortunate, and tremendous hubris in the face of the Wall Street meltdown. So glad that you support lax regulation because we will fall into the abyss next cycle.
Hi Matthew,
Ferdinand Lundberg wrote the "Rich and Super-rich" that validates your 1%.
At that time, they were just people. In fact, people realized a simple fact--you don't get a job from a poor man. That is how I begin my discussion with any Liberal. After much squirming, they finally admit the obvious.
So, which one is it--you want a job or are the rich evil? You can't have both ways--but that's what liberals do--they don't think past the last rally.
Oh yes, Lundberg wrote that in 1968 when the economy was booming and Liberals were getting their feet wet. There's been many years of prosperity since then so blaming the 1% for anything is rather vacuous.
Supply-side economics began to deteriorate once the Liberals began destroying the economic fabric through artificially manipulating it through social-re-constructionism.
My generation did not start welfare and all the other give-aways programs that have contributed to this point. That's the problem. Now other generations are paying the price for all those "feel good" policies.
If you want to read only liberal publications--fine, but 88% percent is a gross exaggeration. No, that's just silly and you are an educated bright person. We need people like you to see propaganda when it comes and not be convinced by such obvious lies.
By the way, we are not here because of Bush's wars. The Liberals demanded sub-prime loans for the poor and "disadvantaged." That's what started this mess.
(Since you brought it up--what happed to all of the Obama promises to get out of the middle-east his first year?? In fact, he gave the rich bail-outs at the expense of the workers. This is nothing new for Liberals.)
The hubris is found in the Liberal agenda. On a national level they want us to become soviet clones. It is embarrassing after Nikita Khrushchev's son moved here seeking freedom.
Also those wars you sight were funded by the Democratically controlled Legislature.
Stop buying into the liberal publications and media. If you want to know what's going on, explore European news.
Matthew..I am assuming that you're an intelligent, educated man. Please , please check your facts before you spout off about them. Here's a link to one fact - check it out:
http://fallenfromgrace.net/2011/10/18/record-deportations-under-president-obama/
Google is your friend, honest.
I won't comment on anything else - just got home from 4 hours of dialysis that may or may not be paid for in the future.
People, people...what does a "liberal" look like, smell like? If they're so evil, it must be awful !
Matthew, now I will apologize...my comment was directed at John Voris...also a fine upstanding, educated man..I'm assuming.
Again...sorry about putting the wrong name on my previous post.
We need people like you to see propaganda when it comes and not be convinced by such obvious lies.
Hey Janet,
I got your point.
A Liberal is one who repetitiously votes for expensive social programs that cannot be paid for or one who votes for politicians who repetitiously support the same.
They hide behind their real motivation--status envy.
(And many of my friends are Liberals, we just don't talk politics. )
They don't look different or smell different but if your out of a job or lost your home, the may seem evil and it is very awful.
oh, John...snarky does not become you. Just the facts, folks, just the facts.
And I'm betting you have to have the last word, too. Well, have at it :)
Janet,
If that was for me--your link is right.--But my focus was Liberals and a history spanning 40 years of avoiding the immigration issue.
Today, we cannot even drive in lower Texas. In fact there are road signs saying we cannot protect our own citizens from the Cartel
So, Obama is cracking down--thank the Arizona Governor for forcing him to do what is right.
This debate seems to have moved away from the original intent of the author's article which was to extol the virtues of a system that combines capitalism and compassion.
To blame Liberals for the current fiscal challenges that the U.S., Europe and other countries face is somewhat facile.
To blame unregulated capitalism is also facile.
The true imbalances have come from unprecedented expenditures on military ventures combined with the export of capital through consumer spending on goods made offshore. The consumer society was fuelled by easy credit and the promise of advertisers to buy into a lifestyle that didn't require much effort to achieve.
The U.S. and EU have structural deficits coming from different fiscal sources. You have to collect revenue to spend it. The current governments haven't the courage to tell their citizens the facts of life. Instead they push the problem into the future just like they push back on establishing policy and programs to manage other major issues such as climate change.
This is morally irresponsible. The last thing I worry about is my child's tax liability when she inherits my estate. I want to make sure that the world she inherits from me is not full of politicians who blow hot air and deliver nothing more than propaganda on the right or the left.
Where are the statesmen and women today? We are pandered to by simpletons and given cliched phrases upon which to build hope.
We all, whether liberal or conservative, religious or atheist, share a planet that is being impacted by poor governments, bad policies, quick fixes and a willful blindness.
Blaming liberals for the world of today? I don't think so. Blaming conservatives? Aah...aah. Please, we elect some pretty dumb people on both sides of the aisle, who then pass dumb laws and then start running again as soon as they are elected and buy our votes with our own tax dollars.
I'm not sure if this dumbing down of leadership is a symptom of the overwhelming noise we all experience in society. It's as if we all have attention deficit and flit from one hackneyed idea to another without ever really sitting down and seeing the entire picture.
"Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself." - Milton Friedman
To blame Liberals for the current fiscal challenges that the U.S., Europe and other countries face is somewhat facile.
John:
I will repeat for your edification that I read both sides of the discourse on social and fiscal liberalism AND conservatism to know how each side thinks. Now, we should be the greatest country on earth. I believe we used to be until Reagan started his "trickle down" economic policies. An abject failure. Clinton was lucky to have the economic engine of technology's boom. Under Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, and Obama, entitlement programs and other government spending exploded. We are spending north of one third of our tax dollars on interest from our national debt. I will fall on my sword and die for you John to state that Bush II was the catalyst for our serious economic woes.
Bush II came into office and decided that it was not only a good idea to "give Americans back their money because they know better than the government how to spend it (right, on homes, boats, toys, trips, etc)," but also to give folks with millions and billions of assets and wealth a tax cut. History will look back on his presidency as the period that accelerated our decline because he was so feckless and irresponsible as a leader.
Oh, you mentioned the wars.... remember those nice men known as neo-cons? Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld - bad, bad men. The lies and deceit to convince Congress and this nation to vote for an illegal war on a sovereign nation, Iraq, were reprehensible and wrong. We are still paying for that mistake, with nothing to show for it - 4.6 trillion dollars later! Oh, and now Iran has the strongest hand in the region thanks to our meddling, and their "leadership!?" really hate us.
Look, we are better than the obstructionist policies of the likes of McConnell (another really bad person), Boehner, Cantor, and the rest of those henchmen who are putting politics over the needs of the nation. Reid, Pelosi, and Frank are also a bunch of colossal losers. For shame! And I don't think Obama has been the answer either. He has capitulated to a group of thugs on the GOP.
If we live long enough to see the drama play itself out, we will look back with a jaundiced eye to the start of a decade, century, and millennium when we had so much promise, and it was squandered by politicians on both sides of the aisle, leading to our debtor nation, war mongering, greedy financial philandering, and untimely demise as a world leader. Go China!
Well this has been fun, but probably over played for now. I think I'll go create my own firestorm and write an article I'll call "Facebook and Twitter are Stupid." Happy trails.
Richard,
Before my recent entry, I had left this post in September of 2009. Thank you for reminding me why.
Matthew,
You're an intelligent, educated young man who's opinion simply differs from mine and that's how I'm leaving it.
This venue is far too restrictive for anyone to voice their full position, or be persuaded to change their mind.
I have several dozen books on Capitalism alone so we will not be resolving anything soon. :)
If we were in a coffee shop where ideas could be fully communicated, I am confident we would find a great deal of agreement.
So, thank you for your time.
Thanks John. We do have points of agreement and difference, and that is still one of the greatest attributes of a democracy. We can talk about it. As I tell my GOP friends, I just know that we can do better, and part of that is for everyone to have empathy for the struggling families and individuals out there. With so much bounty, why does a young man in Costa Mesa, CA jump from a roof at the municipal building on the day that he gets a pink slip? Could the person who presided over the lay-offs thought about his actions, and symbolically suggested a pay cut for top city executives? He makes almost 300k per year. The young man made 44k per year, and was at no fault. That's what I'm asking you and others who are so entrenched in protecting those with much and too much to consider.....
Best regards,
Matt
Bookmark article
Follow article
Email to a friend
Share 
