Health Care

Moyers 2 Obama: Remind Us of Our Greatness as a Democracy

bill-moyers


“This health care thing is make or break for your leadership, but for us, it’s life and death. No more Mr. Nice Guy, Mr. President. We need a fighter.”


Bill Moyers closed his Friday night show with a video essay titled “Obama’s Moment.” In it Moyers spoke to both the country and the president about the crucial issue of health care reform—and the significance of the recent discourse that has surrounded the issue.

It is mandatory viewing.

As you can see, I have pasted the transcript below. But watch the video.


Here, also, is a link to the essay by Henry Giroux, Living in a Culture of Cruelty: Democracy as Spectacle,
published Wednesday, that Moyers references.

More and more these days, I find myself deeply thankful for the very existence of Bill Moyers.

September 4, 2009

BILL MOYERS: The editors of THE ECONOMIST magazine say America’s health care debate has become a touch delirious, with people accusing each other of being evil-mongers, dealers in death, and un-American.

Well, that’s charitable.

I would say it’s more deranged than delirious, and definitely not un-American.

Those crackpots on the right praying for Obama to die and be sent to hell — they’re the warp and woof of home-grown nuttiness. So is the creature from the Second Amendment who showed up at the President’s rally armed to the teeth. He’s certainly one of us. Red, white, and blue kooks are as American as apple pie and conspiracy theories.

Bill Maher asked me on his show last week if America is still a great nation.
I should have said it’s the greatest show on earth. Forget what you learned in civics about the Founding Fathers — we’re the children of Barnum and Bailey, our founding con men. Their freak show was the forerunner of today’s talk radio.

Speaking of which: we’ve posted on our website an essay by the media scholar Henry Giroux. He describes the growing domination of hate radio as one of the crucial elements in a “culture of cruelty” increasingly marked by overt racism, hostility and disdain for others, coupled with a simmering threat of mob violence toward any political figure who believes health care reform is the most vital of safety nets, especially now that the central issue of life and politics is no longer about working to get ahead, but struggling simply to survive.

So here we are, wallowing in our dysfunction. Governed — if you listen to the rabble rousers — by a black nationalist from Kenya smuggled into the United States to kill Sarah Palin’s baby. And yes, I could almost buy their belief that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, only I think he shipped them to Washington, where they’ve been recycled as lobbyists and trained in the alchemy of money laundering, which turns an old-fashioned bribe into a First Amendment right.

Only in a fantasy capital like Washington could Sunday morning talk shows become the high church of conventional wisdom, with partisan shills treated as holy men whose gospel of prosperity always seems to boil down to lower taxes for the rich.

Poor Obama. He came to town preaching the religion of nice. But every time he bows politely, the harder the Republicans kick him.

No one’s ever conquered Washington politics by constantly saying “pretty please” to the guys trying to cut your throat.

Let’s get on with it, Mr. President. We’re up the proverbial creek with spaghetti as our paddle. This health care thing could have been the crossing of the Delaware, the turning point in the next American Revolution — the moment we put the mercenaries to rout, as General Washington did the Hessians at Trenton. We could have stamped our victory “Made in the USA.” We could have said to the world, “Look what we did!” And we could have turned to each other and said, “Thank you.”

As it is, we’re about to get health care reform that measures human beings only in corporate terms of a cost-benefit analysis. I mean this is topsy-turvy — we should be treating health as a condition, not a commodity.

As we speak, Pfizer, the world’s largest drug maker, has been fined a record $2.3 billion dollars as a civil and criminal — yes, that’s criminal, as in fraud — penalty for promoting prescription drugs with the subtlety of the Russian mafia. It’s the fourth time in a decade Pfizer’s been called on the carpet. And these are the people into whose tender mercies Congress and the White House would deliver us?

Come on, Mr. President. Show us America is more than a circus or a market. Remind us of our greatness as a democracy. When you speak to Congress next week, just come out and say it. We thought we heard you say during the campaign last year that you want a government run insurance plan alongside private insurance — mostly premium-based, with subsidies for low-and-moderate income people. Open to all individuals and employees who want to join and with everyone free to choose the doctors we want. We thought you said Uncle Sam would sign on as our tough, cost-minded negotiator standing up to the cartel of drug and insurance companies and Wall Street investors whose only interest is a company’s share price and profits.

Here’s a suggestion, Mr. President: ask Josh Marshall to draft your speech. Josh is the founder of the website talkingpointsmemo.com. He’s a journalist and historian, not a politician. He doesn’t split things down the middle and call it a victory for the masses. He’s offered the simplest and most accurate description yet of a public insurance plan — one that essentially asks people: would you like the option — the voluntary option — of buying into Medicare before you’re 65? Check it out, Mr. President.

This health care thing is make or break for your leadership,
but for us, it’s life and death. No more Mr. Nice Guy, Mr. President. We need a fighter.

125 Comments

  • Moyers is an idiot and that’s a stretch for him to reach that level. How sad that this shill doesn’t mention the Obama suppporter that bit off the guys finger or the Obama is Hitler sign holder at a rally that was an Obama supporter.

    Lunatics left and right are a distraction to the actual issues. If you want to see a real telling video google Pledge Obama, where loads of the Hollywood elite pretty much place themselves in servitude to Obabma, it’s sickening and the news hasn’t touched it which would have been the exact opposite if it had been done for any Republican president.

    Obama’s ratings have fallen to the lowest in the history of this country for a president with his amount of time in office. All types of people are waking up to this fraud and his Chicago Style Politics he’s brought to the White House.

    Hope he has a good time with his one term.

  • Moyers is a blowhard and a fool, with an abiding contempt for America–so it’s not surprising that he’s also spent a lifetime supping at the PBS trough. Our tax money at work. Also not surprising that he makes Celeste’s heart go pitter-pat.

  • I’m trying to stay off of national politics, but I liked the Moyers essay and I figured it would trigger some quarrelsome comments. So, good. It’s working.

    And Woody, I completely understand the too-many-words-during-football-season perspective. (I get around that with audible books on my iPod.)

    But it was already clear early in the day that USC was going to motor over San Jose quite handily. (On to Ohio State.) Between that, and the fact that my niece’s rehearsal dinner for her wedding tomorrow was tonight, I found it difficult to care about much else.

    Winny, I just reread your comment. So, you’re saying that I like Moyers (sorry, the pitter patter thing is just too silly) because he has contempt for America?

    Hmmm. A weird conclusion.

  • Moyers deserves no respect. He was LBJ’s main ass kisser and had questions planted for LBJ at press confrences back in the 60’s and complained about how Bush did the same thing when we invaded Iraq.

    The guy is nuts, a liar and should have been put out to pasture long ago. Only the leftist in society buy the crap he spouts. You’re a leftist Celeste but I don’t think you have contempt for the country, you just need people like me to straighten you out. You know like I did for Reg.

  • Surefire – go crawl back in your miserable little corner. You’re not capable of anythng other than spewing vomit – when you’re not whining. I called you on your bullshit here and you proved you’re nothing more than a burnout with anger issues.

  • Did anyone catch anything in the responses to Bill Moyers that rose above the level of puerile slander and trolling ? Not a single comment that dealt with anything in the post. Basically Brownshirt attempts to suggest that Moyers is anti-American. That filth is all these fucks are capable of and contempt is all they deserve in return.

    Garbage.

    I’d delete these useless, foul little trolls from a blog thread – just like I’d scoop poop up off of the sidewalk so others don’t have to step around it – but it’s not my call.

  • Great link to Moyers, Celeste. I think he’s dead on.

    I hope President Obama saw Moyers’ editorial.

    Also, I find it funny, albeit, sad that the first three comments on this subject go to exactly what Giroux, Marshall, and Moyers (heck, even The Economist) have said about how our national discourse has been hijacked by juvenile-like loudmouths. Empty barrels always make the most noise. Seldom do they make any sense.

    reg, I appreciate and share your concern that folks not step in the poo.

  • After reading the quotes, I see no reason to pay any more attention to Moyers than he has warranted in the past: HE is the freak show.

    His haughty, hate-filled illogic, not even on the subject of the health care debate, is hardly a way to start such a discussion. He is disgusting.

    The man is a loon, has long been a loon supported by taxpayer dollars, and not worth a listen (and I don’t even watch football).

  • I still nremember Moyers’ insightful series of interviews with the great, brilliant Joseph Campbell (Hero With a Thousand Faces etc., the classic studies which distill world religions/archetypes, used either intentionally or subconsciously by authors from ancient times to Star Wars and modern “hero epics”), and he is anything but hate-filled, disgusting, a loon, nuts or a liar (to quote some of the adjectives here). He may or may not be right in his take on the healthcare debates (lots of liberals AND conservatives are sadly dogmatically illogical on this issue) but he is one of our greatest living humanists and one of the very FEW people left worth listening to.

  • Not to weight into the complex healthcare issue here on a holiday weekend where I’m quickly popping in here, but Moyer’s concluding question (in the excerpt) of just asking people if they’d like to buy into Medicare before they’re 65, seems like it would be a good way to go to jump-start a more civil conversation. E.g., here in California, many doctors won’t even take Medicare because the reimbursement rate is too low relative to their costs/ what private insurers pay; but part of that problem is that right now, Medicare handles only the most elderly with the most health problems on average, and can’t reject the seriously ill, but if younger and healthier people were in the pool as well, it would change the whole discussion. Also, if more people opted into that plan instead of paying for private insurance, they’d have more relative clout.

    Right now, private insurance is way too expensive, self-employed people pay WAY too much, with costs going up by their age and what seems to be 10% annually no matter what; and we’re afraid to tell our doctors about conditions as minor as acne because it can double our rates further, even for perfectly healthy college students, yet if we don’t, our coverage can be revoked retroactively when we really need it for some future significant illness. On the other hand, with insured patients doctors max out the tests we’re entitled to and these tests multiply by age, however unpleasant they may be or expose us to radiation, and they often recommend surgical procedures that are more highly reimbursed and hence profitable over less invasive ones, even if they’re more traumatic to the patient (e.g, this country has way more hysterectomies than any other because it’s an easy, profitable gravy train for doctors, while non-invasive procedures are readily available for most cases).

    Right now, the whole “debate” is so muddled, so lacking in specifics, that the Democrats have done themselves a great disservice by having 5-6 possible plans out there, and different proponents are saying different things in support. Much as I really abhor the way rightwing radio IS so hate-filled and sophomorically vitriolic, I’m concerned that even NOW AMA “guidelines” are often set in stone in the minds of many doctors and ARE age-related, so that an extremely fit and healthy person is arbitrarily treated as a statistic — especially the case with women, as I’ve experienced to my dismay, and have had to fight with the help of a sympathetic doctor after a lot of time and effort.

    Why NOT answer directly the questions I hear most often on talk radio, like: WOULD more expensive and/or specialized treatments be rationed by age, by “expected” life expectancy, etc., as opponents claim? And as is the case in countries like Britain and Canada, where wealthier older people must resort to private alternatives? Would private insurers be put out of business by their inability to compete? Would younger illegal gangbangers be given precedence over an elderly citizen when it comes to some procedures, and what coverage WOULD they be entitled to? (Something I hear all the time.) Why not simply put self- employed people into a giant “group” policy like huge companies have, and let them pay the lower rates without the exclusions for pre-existing conditions?

    Frankly, I hear such general bromides from the left about “healthcare is a right not a privilege” vs. “Dr. Death” fearmongering on the right, I’ve simply stopped paying attention.

    Much as I respect and value Moyer, I disagree that Obama and Pelosi etc. should just be more forceful: instead of demonizing their critics, they should understand their real fears; they need to really listen to their critics and show us something very specific that addresses their concerns.

  • WBC- you have a bit of a point about the ‘honesty’ of the discussion regarding the health care debate. But even the more sane, non-hyperventilating conservatives are begrudgingly admitting that all the nonsense like death panels and the like has totally spoiled the soup.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/03/health/policy/03conservatives.html
    Meanwhile conservatives are drawing complete blanks around one the most fundamental parts of reform – the rising costs. They simply can not wrap their brains around the notion that the government is going to have to play a significant roll. Here’s the *point” much better summed up in the linked article:
    “That is not to say that there is much of a consensus among conservative health care policy analysts, who face an intellectual conflict on health care: many proven ways of saving money have tended to result from the sort of centralized decision-making that they have traditionally abhorred.”

  • # Sure Fire Says:
    September 5th, 2009 at 9:59 pm

    “Hope he (Obama) has a good time with his one term.”

    ……

    One term? What are you joking? What Republican’s going to beat him in ’12? Please give me a name. I need the laugh.

  • Sure Fire Says:
    September 6th, 2009 at 4:47 am

    “You’re a leftist Celeste but I don’t think you have contempt for the country, you just need people like me to straighten you out.”

    ………

    Only a Nazi could have put it better.

  • reg Says:
    September 6th, 2009 at 7:40 am

    “Fuck football.”

    ……….

    Whoa, Reg… I’m on your side. But you’re going to lose me with that shit. Wait till the Raiders lay down for San Diego a week from Mon., then maybe I’ll agree.

  • Not to weight into the complex healthcare issue here on a holiday weekend where I’m quickly popping in here, but Moyer’s concluding question (in the excerpt) of just asking people if they’d like to buy into Medicare before they’re 65, seems like it would be a good way to go to jump-start a more civil conversation. E.g., here in California, many doctors won’t even take Medicare because the reimbursement rate is too low relative to their costs/ what private insurers pay; but part of that problem is that right now, Medicare handles only the most elderly with the most health problems on average, and can’t reject the seriously ill, but if younger and healthier people were in the pool as well, it would change the whole discussion. Also, if more people opted into that plan instead of paying for private insurance, they’d have more relative clout.

    Might as well discuss something substantive 🙂

    The reason docs don’t want to take Medicare is the government fixed rate is too low. Adding more people to the pool wouldn’t change that, since we’re all already paying for Medicare. Medicare is a natural effect of a governmental system – it is too expensive, so they are rationing care by reducing choices of seniors. As one with pre-existing conditions, I fear I will be in that pool in a few years. If the government was honest about Medicare, it would pay the full load, instead of cost shifting it onto providers, some of whom (but not a lot of docs) are able to cost shift it onto non-medicare payers. The same is true, but worse, with Medicaid.

    Right now, private insurance is way too expensive, self-employed people pay WAY too much, with costs going up by their age and what seems to be 10% annually no matter what; and we’re afraid to tell our doctors about conditions as minor as acne because it can double our rates further, even for perfectly healthy college students, yet if we don’t, our coverage can be revoked retroactively when we really need it for some future significant illness. On the other hand, with insured patients doctors max out the tests we’re entitled to and these tests multiply by age, however unpleasant they may be or expose us to radiation, and they often recommend surgical procedures that are more highly reimbursed and hence profitable over less invasive ones, even if they’re more traumatic to the patient (e.g, this country has way more hysterectomies than any other because it’s an easy, profitable gravy train for doctors, while non-invasive procedures are readily available for most cases).

    Most doctors max out the tests as part of defensive medicine – they’re afraid of the trial lawyers. Whlie the press makes a big deal of how medical costs go up faster than inflation, they forget to mention that malpractice insurance costs, driven by greedy trial lawyers, are rising twice as fast. The Democrats, who are owned by the trial lawyers due to the huge contributions from them, have no interest in solving this problem, any more than they do in ending the legal lottery by changing to a loser-pays-winner’s legal expenses. The latter just cost my daughter a bunch of money, because her auto insurance company chose to settle rather than pay the cost of a trial they were sure to win. Now her care insurance costs will go up. The same, but much worse, happens to doctors. A friend who became an OB to bring joy into the world had to drop her charitable practice on a nearby Indian reservation because of the malpractice risks.

    However, research has shown that when doctors make money off of tests, they are more likely to order more.

    Why NOT answer directly the questions I hear most often on talk radio, like: WOULD more expensive and/or specialized treatments be rationed by age, by “expected” life expectancy, etc., as opponents claim?

    Because the answer is politically deadly to Democrats.

    Frankly, I hear such general bromides from the left about “healthcare is a right not a privilege” vs. “Dr. Death” fearmongering on the right, I’ve simply stopped paying attention.

    You are right that the rhetoric on both sides has gotten out of hand.

  • Rob, you are right that most conservatives are not coming up with answers to the problem, the same way that Obama and crowd have failed to come up with anything reasonable.

    The fundamental political problem is that, by a huge majority, most people are happy with their health care and health insurance. Anything that threatens that is an issue, and they don’t need conservative alarmists to know that. When seniors hear Obama plans to cut Medicare reimbursements significantly, they know (regardless of his bromides) that this means their care will suffer. It was a deadly dumb political move for him to promote those cuts. Pure political deafness.

    A few conservatives are recognizing that universal health insurance (not equivalent to single payer) is a political demand that will not go away, while some Democrats are starting to figure out that a rushed-through command driven approach is not going to fly.

  • John, I’m glad you admit that conservatives aren’t doing so well with the cost thing. But I beg to differ that Obama and the Dems have “failed” to come with anything reasonable. Also, why the double qualifiers: “…by a huge majority, most people are happy with their health care and health insurance.”? How do you know this? Wouldn’t you rather say that most people just don’t want THEIR ACCESS to health care to become any less than what they have know? I can’t quote you a %, but it seems intrinsic that everyone who has health insurance through an employer looks at their pay stub to see what % this benefit is of their pay. I do. Don’t you? Does it not worry you that that the inflationary pressures on this benefit creates the desire amongst employers to shed health care? What agency (NOUN) other than government can you come up with to remedy this problem?

  • John Moore Says:
    September 6th, 2009 at 8:46 pm

    “The fundamental political problem is that, by a huge majority, most people are happy with their health care and health insurance.”

    …………..

    Why didn’t you leave a link to a source to support this statement? Afraid people will see the “www.foxnews” and immediately dismiss it? I don’t blame you.

  • Yeah, I’m glad I didn’t actually weight in on the topic…
    but glad to see a pretty civil discussion going on, at least a lot more than what we see at those forums and tea parties.

    John makes a valid point, that by declaring that Medicare would have to be cut further to help pay for their (vague) plan, the Obama admin. has only created greater opposition. Especially when fewer doctors are accepting it already and/or wait times for those doctors can be very long. Some of the patients at the free INglewood (?) forum recently were Medicare patients, as I recall from the Times report. (Others had private insurance with huge deductibles.)

    I don’t see the logic for John’s argument, though, that the litigious nature of our society and hence, one reason for the high cost of medical care here, medical insurance, is something to lay at the feet of Democrats any more than Republicans.

    I would like to know where talkradio gets the “fact” that most people are happy with their current insurance and doctors, as the reason for their skepticism. Are there any polls, or is this speculation?

  • The debate about health care, access to the doctor etal., or rather the answer to the debate is obvious and so simple that it is mind numbingly frustrating that this answer has eluded us for so many years. Decades. Generations. Sigh.

    The answer is that everyone should be covered.
    By having everyone pay.
    That’s it.
    That’s all it really is.

    But who’s checking whom to see and know that every one is covered?
    And who is actually paying the doggone claims?

    We can either have a single payer/all on Medicare system, or we can have private WELL REGULATED insurance companies cover everyone. In a nation of 300 million people we oughta be able to construct one system or the other.

    ______
    But how does my ideological position win?
    Easy.
    Liberals win by finally getting everyone covered. (Send your prayers to the Teddies — Roosevelt and Kennedy — we finally did it!)
    Conservatives win by having a fair playing field that every business and individual easily understands.
    There is one catch for conservatives, though. You have to pick one of the following: Do you want financially muscular private insurance companies that are a force (especially political lobbying) onto themselves? Or do you want American businesses to carry no more than the same streamlined insurance obligations that Canadian, Asian, Australian, and European businesses take advantage of now?
    You can not have both.

  • Yeah anyone who disagrees with the leftist drivel of some posters is a Brown Shirt or nazi, what a bunch of mental giants. I feel like I’m talking to the pres and vice pres of the special ed class. Reg, when you’re squatting to pee and it’s burning remember you can reverse karma by being something more than a big mouthed mindless bitch. Write that down old man, I know you’ll forget it.

    I mean WTF Celeste, you don’t seem to mind the absolute nasty bitch posts you get from these limited assholes so I guess once in awhile I can give some back. Hey asswipe, I mean Cisco, your idiot president will go down and my best guess would be Romney, but others could beat him. There’s many others but I think he’s your next pres if he runs.

    He’s dug the quickest grave in the history of the presidency and will just sink further and further as time goes on. Obabma is a product of my home town where politians are scum, even more so than L.A. (though we’re trying hard to catch up), and he’s never done anything of real importance prior to being elected and is so far left he won’t get a thing accomplished over his only term.

    People voted him in for 3 reasons, Republicans decided to act like they were all gelded which made them real close to being Democrats and losing people because of their own spend like a drunken Democratic sailor ways, youngsters wanted to show how cool and all embracing they were and decided to vote for someone who just didn’t sound or look like your standard politician and knew nothing about what a fraud he was and the media nutted out and followed Hollywood’s lead in kissing his ass like they always do for any lib.

    Obama is a cranival barker and nothing more and Moyers is a repugnant piece of sleaze that appeals only to idiots who can forgive and forget anyone whose in their political camp.

    To put Moyers and Maher on the same screen is gut wrenching. These egotistical brainless lemmings of everything left are so easy to pick a part it’s not even a challenge. However since shit for brains Reg acts like their love child and now his half-demented buddy Cisco has chimed in answering to either of you crackheads is just wasted computer time.

    Thanks for the outlet Celeste I’ll be back to my charming self next time and I hope Reg’s night nurse doesn’t get all his wrath and a soiled bed when he looses it after reading my post.

  • John, I’m glad you admit that conservatives aren’t doing so well with the cost thing.

    You misread. The Democrats are having problem with the cost thing, as they insist on cutting Medicare that already is underpaying providers.

    Conservatives have a problem accepting that the public wants universal coverage, even if the means to get there go against conservative ideology.

    But I beg to differ that Obama and the Dems have “failed” to come with anything reasonable.

    Have you read the bill? I have. It is a gigantic mess, and will guarantee enormous bureaucracies. Furthermore, it does nothing to reduce cost – they just wave a magic wand and claim that costs will be reduced.

    Also, why the double qualifiers: “…by a huge majority, most people are happy with their health care and health insurance.”?

    Because I don’t spend a lot of time editing.

    How do you know this?

    Polls. Do you disagree?

    Wouldn’t you rather say that most people just don’t want THEIR ACCESS to health care to become any less than what they have know? I can’t quote you a %, but it seems intrinsic that everyone who has health insurance through an employer looks at their pay stub to see what % this benefit is of their pay. I do. Don’t you? Does it not worry you that that the inflationary pressures on this benefit creates the desire amongst employers to shed health care?

    I am not saying that most people are properly analyzing the situation. I am describing the politics. People are seriously afraid that their current insurance, which mostly they feel is protecting them, will be either raised in cost or denied them. They also fear loss of choice (as is already happening to Medicare recipients due to government underpayment).

    Yes, it worries me a whole lot. You should note that my personal situation is at odds with what most conservative pundits would do, even though I am (mostly) a conservative.

    What agency (NOUN) other than government can you come up with to remedy this problem?

    NOUN?

    The government (and unions) are the original cause of this structural problem. WW-II price controls prevented companies from giving the raises that unions demanded, so companies provided health insurance instead, bypassing the controls. The government also provides employers a full tax deduction for employee health insurance costs, while not providing the same to employees. The first issue led to the practice of using companies for one’s health insurance The second issue has added to the ridiculous practice of covering almost every expense, which has turned insurance into pre-paid health care. With the tax incentive, it is rational for an employee to choose employer insurance, because the costs of routine health care then are tax deductible (to the employer, passed through to the employee in wages).

    This is why conservatives have called for shifting the payment incentives by removing the tax deduction on employers and providing it to individuals directly.

    Unfortunately, that is not enough. For insurance to be effective, it must have large risk pools, and, in the face of government-forced cost shifting (from Medicare, Medicaid, and forced treatment of the uninsured), they must have large numbers of subscribers in order to get good pricing from providers. Otherwise providers will shift all the unpaid costs of the aforementioned kind onto them. This is illustrated by comparing the provider price to an insurer to the retail price they attempt to charge the uninsured (in one test I had, the numbers were $480 if the insurance company paid, $5000 if you paid individually or the provider was not contracted with the insurance company, in a procedure a relative had, the numbers were $14000 and $50000 respectively). On top of this is the problem of the uninsurable (a category I am in – it happens as you get older), and the dramatically increased cost of health care with age. Insurance companies rationally try to not insure such people, or charge very high rates.

    Hence I favor a non-conservative part of the solution: a mandate that everyone must pay into the insurance system. The insurance companies have offered to remove medical under-writing (pre-existing conditions, etc) in return for a must-have-insurance mandate. (and yes, this is not out of the goodness of their hearts, but because they are scared to death of alternatives, and they like the idea of more customers, even if they also have more costs).

    Also, in order to stimulate better competition, insurance should be nationwide instead of state-wide (this grates on my federalist principles, but rigid adherence to ideology is as dumb as choosing the wrong ideology to not rigidly adhere to).

    What makes no sense at all is the “public option.” There are already not-for-profit insurance companies. Since the government would control the “public option,” it is inevitable that legislation will provide unreasonable advantages to that plan, killing off private insurance entirely (which I think is the ultimate goal).

    I don’t see the logic for John’s argument, though, that the litigious nature of our society and hence, one reason for the high cost of medical care here, medical insurance, is something to lay at the feet of Democrats any more than Republicans

    The reason is simple: follow the money. Plaintiff lawyers, including malpractice attorneys, donate enormous amounts of money to Democrats and virtually none to Republicans. In return, Democrats have blocked every national attempt at tort reform. Add to that the principle magically discovered by liberal judges (yes, the reasoning followed progressiveprinciples) that winners of lawsuits must pay their own legal costs, and the absurd class action suits allowed. THis has created a situation where entrepeneurial lawyers invest in big-time legislation against deep pockets (Pharmaceutical companies are a favorite, but doctors are too – ask Edwards). The result: huge amounts of money flowing to lawyers who have invested relatively little. It’s basically an extortion scheme, with laywers making the money, and people who have been injured getting little. Too often, the deep pockets are not at fault, but are hit with huge punitive damages because gullible juries are convinced otherwise (especially before the recent reforms on “expert” witnesses).

    Note that medical malpractice insurance rates are rising twice as fast as medical costs.

  • But how does my ideological position win?
    Easy.
    Liberals win by finally getting everyone covered. (Send your prayers to the Teddies — Roosevelt and Kennedy — we finally did it!)

    Too many liberals will be satisfied by nothing other than a single payer system, and have said so.

    There is one catch for conservatives, though. You have to pick one of the following: Do you want financially muscular private insurance companies that are a force (especially political lobbying) onto themselves? Or do you want American businesses to carry no more than the same streamlined insurance obligations that Canadian, Asian, Australian, and European businesses take advantage of now?
    You can not have both.

    If you do it right, American businesses won’t be providing the insurance in the first place. Individuals will. In this modern age, with the rapid change in technology and with high mobility, it is illogical for health insurance to have anything to do with the employers.

    The insurance companies will of course be lobbyists (just like all the other players, including the government bureaucrats in a single payer system). That’s reality.

  • To the owner of the 25th comment —
    So how do you really feel about reg? You’re entitled to opinions about 2012, but that’s a ways off…
    Um, if you want to check out something interesting that conservatives are saying about health care reform, you might want to read this link: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/03/health/policy/03conservatives.html
    In it Gail Wilensky (who was a health care advisor to GWB & John McCain) and other conservatives at least tacitly acknowledge that the level of shrillness — coming from YOUR side of the political spectrum — is actually getting in the way of testing out some real positions that both liberals and conservatives might actually agree on. Also, there’s some agreement that some of the pet constituents on the right (big phrama? insurers? Sarah Palin? all the above?) might just have to take no for answer as well. For godssakes, one wouldn’t want that to happen now, because it just might, oh my god, go toward proving Moyers’ point in the first place that now’s the time to get serious about reform.

  • I heard a snippet on the local CBS news tonight citing a CNN poll that more people feel the government’s public option plan than they do their current insurance: that’s not the same as saying they’re happy with their current insurance. I couldn’t find a CNN poll more recent than 8/15, however, which indicates Americans pretty much tied on the idea of offering one, with younger people and women more in favor; however, a July 1st poll showed that only 1 in 5 believed the public option would lower THEIR health insurance costs.

    The KCBS2-9 website does offer 2 current polls of its own on the issue, with voters strongly supporting the White House’s plans to pare down its proposals to basics like ending capitations and underwriting to exclude previous conditions, and withdraw the public option portion (58-59% on both, vs. 31 and 35% respectively supporting the White House’s current plan(s), the rest undecided.) This doesn’t say how many voted, but if it’s any indication, the White house hasn’t sold their idea. (I don’t think it’s fair to blame Obama himself, though: it’s just my opinion, but I’ve always felt Pelosi pushed so hard for him over Hillary because she and her clique wanted to use him to sell their own agenda. They’ve really made him tremendously unpopular in the process, a precipitous drop from polls and adulation in January — I think he’s been badly used.)

  • I meant, re: the CNN poll referenced, more people FEAR (not “feel”) the gov’t’s public option plan than what they have now…

  • Sure Fire Says:
    September 6th, 2009 at 11:05 pm

    Yeah anyone who disagrees with the leftist drivel of some posters is a Brown Shirt or nazi, what a bunch of mental giants.

    ……

    I didn’t call you a Nazi because you disagreed with anyone’s political views, Sure Fire. I called you a Nazi because you vowed to “straighten out” someone for having political views you don’t share.

    Sincerley,

    Mental Giant

  • WBC, the reason I mocked John Moore by assuming the only source he had was a foxnews poll, is because the only source he has is a fox news poll. The only poll in existence that shows a whopping majority of Americans being happy with their health care is one fox news ran. The only nation wide poll, at least. I think there was one in Texas, too.

  • The “straighten out” was said in jest, Reg is nothing more than arepugnant yard gnome with the debating ability of a 3rd grader.

    Rob-I’m not at the far right end of the spectrum, but I am right of center, and have no time for people like McCain who is a sorry excuse for a conservative. Both far right and left crazies get way too much coverage but the nastiest people I’ve ever argued with are on the left.

    The Dems have planted people at tea parties and other events with some really obnoxious posters and yelling racist remarks. It’s bad enough that some far right nuts do it but the tactics of liberals are no different.

    The best way to reduce medical costs is no different than any other industry, competition in the free market. Open it up across all state lines and let me pick and choose and help to create my own plan for mine and my wife’s needs. I don’t need the government to help me as they screw up too many other things.

  • John, if a FoxNews poll is so credible, why didn’t you link to it at first? I never said the poll wasn’t true. Just pointed out that it was FoxNews, and that you were ashamed to name them as a source. Just thought it was funny, that’s all.

  • Sure Fire Says:
    September 7th, 2009 at 2:13 am

    The “straighten out” was said in jest,

    ………..

    Maybe so. But it’s still something a Nazi would say. And, to be honest, I only hear Republicans entertaining the idea of forcing people into their ideology, even in jest. Nobody else even jokes around like that. Ever notice that?

  • Sure Fire Says:
    September 7th, 2009 at 2:13 am

    “The best way to reduce medical costs is no different than any other industry, competition in the free market.”

    ………..

    Oh, you mean like what we’ve been doing, which has resulted in costs that are breaking the backs of middle class Americans? Well, except for in that part of America called Fantasyland, where foxnews ran that recent poll.

  • “If you do it right, American businesses won’t be providing the insurance in the first place. Individuals will. In this modern age, with the rapid change in technology and with high mobility, it is illogical for health insurance to have anything to do with the employers.”

    John, What? Employers/Corporations will pay nothing? How’s that right? Give us an example of an advanced capitalist country where that works.

    Mr. Sure Fire: “The best way to reduce medical costs is no different than any other industry, competition in the free market” Okay this is, I’m sorry to inform you, utterly nonsense. First off, we’ve had 60 plus years since Truman proposed nationalization of every kind of *free market* reform/incentive under the sun. Only effect is that private insurers become more profitable and more selective — thus the uninsured # is marching toward 50 million. Second, no industrialized nation that’s solved this problem has done so without a strong federal government regulatory regime or an outright monopoly of insurance. Sure Fire, before you can get in the game on this issue, you gotta get in the stadium first.

  • John, in all fairness, if you meant having health care be portable from one job to another with corporations paying in, then I amend my remarks.

  • WBC makes some good points about making buying into Medicare the easiest way to “get” this. Also why Medicare’s costs are high, because of the pool it covers – although it’s costs aren’t as high as private insurerers. The reason that universal coverage is essential is to bring down costs. I’m not going to go into the weeds of this discussion because I have zero respect for John Moore and am too busy to read his boring bullshit. And I think WBC can find her way through this – and will probably have a better handle by Thursday when Obama has made his argument with more force and clarity. Then there will be something to either agree with or disagree with, but a lot of the deliberate fog and hysteria from the right will be dissipated.

    Also, the biggest problem with Medicare costs is the private insurers piece. That’s where costs are rising. And costs can be cut without diminishing care – not by arbitrary rationing but a better approach to treatment. The Mayo Clinic is noted as one of the best in the country and their cost of treatment per patient is lower than most because they have created a great treatment model for their physicians, who are paid a salary. And they have no problem getting doctors on staff – it’s a great place to practice.

    There actually is empirical evidence out there and it’s on the side of universal coverage, greater regulation of insurers, public insurance and treatment that emphasizes prevention and de-emphasizes billing-per-procedure. And the conservative argument about tort reform as the key to reform is weak at best. More like totally bogus. I’d like to see some sort of tort reform because it can help at the margins – perhaps even nationalizing malpractice insurance and putting on reasonable capse – but when a conservative puts this out there, or the canard about jumping over states regulation of insurance companies and leaving it at that as “reform” – they don’t know what their talking about.

    Frankly, if one looks at empirical evidence from various approaches – the US, France, UK, Canada, Switzerland, Germany – there are lots of different ways to approach universal coverage and cost containment, some better than others with varying mixes of public and private insurance (and only one, UK, providing “socialized medicine”), but the US is at the bottom of the heap when it comes to providing health care at reasonable cost to the maximum number of people. This isn’t even arguable, the empirical evidence is so strong – and anyone who yells the “free market” mantra in the context of this debate as some magical solutioin knows nothing about it. Really, virtually nothing. It’s not a serious argument – not even a little bit. Health care isn’t a “normal” market, for a dozen different reasons.

    And the problem with the debate so far hasn’t just been the complexity – which is real – but the dishonesty of opponents who have been open about using this to “bring down Obama” or inject absolutely insane conspiracy theories into the public discourse, mostly via – yes FOX News. Which is why anyone who uses “Fox News” as a source for anything might as well be quoting Goebbels Ministry of Truth. Yes, Hannity and Beck and the rest are THAT dishonest and debased. Scum. No wonder it’s the last refuge for someone like John Moore…

    And anyone who considers Bill Moyers some sort of demonic figure, worthy of the worst sort of slanders, is in fact the worst sort of person themselves. That’s just a damned fact and I think folks like Surefire prove it with their bile and rage. John Moore wants to hang journalists from the New York Times, for Christ sake, so I hate to think of what he’d have in store for Moyers.

    As for Surefire who wrote: “when you’re squatting to pee and it’s burning remember you can reverse karma by being something more than a big mouthed mindless bitch… Hey asswipe…” followed by the charge that I have “the debating ability of a 3rd grader.”

    Since all this giant has offered up is the notion that deregulation will magically solve the health care problem, I’ll leave it to any normal human being with an IQ above room temperature to grade his “debating ability” or common sense for that matter.

  • Incidentally, I keep reminding people that John Moore wrote a few years back that journalists should be hanged (and more recently accused Walter Cronkite of being a traitor) because I’m absolutely certain he would want us all to remember what Van Jones said a few years ago, so that any future “contributions” can be discredited and dismissed. Nobody gets to rant like a Brownshirt and then get invited into polite salons as though it never happened. Also, it makes it easier to just not read what he writes, which I didn’t because (a) he’s boring and (b) he deserves to be ignored rather than patronized as a reasonable, decent person.

  • Also, it’s always fun to remind folks that the first President to propose universal health insurance was Teddy Roosevelt. Followed by FDR, Truman, Johnson, and even Nixon dabbled in a proposal before Clinton. And Maggie Thatcher couldn’t have possibly pushed through any scheme to dismantle the UK’s national health services. This is NOT a radical scheme. It’s a practical problem that needs to be resolved by best evidence. The GOP isn’t even close to this. Their approach is obstructionist, partisan and dishonest. If any alleged moderates on the rightward side really wanted Nancy Pelosi to have less of a say in this matter, they’d come to the table in an entirely different spirit. They haven’t. Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh rule their world. Which is why the “Brownshirt” charge against the activist ultra-right holdiing the GOP hostage with their antics and hysterics is increasingly not hyberbole but reality.

  • America is still a great country Mr. whining “Sisco” and Moyer. Even though I was a very poor mexican child, I can still afford to pay those outrageous $475.00 monthly Blues Cross Insurance payments. And my my lower back pain is not so bad when driving in my leather Lexus seats, instead of the bus.

    If we could just hang all the ambulance chasing lawyers who caused my doctor’s liability insurace to skyrocket, my doctor could return to his lower rates.

    Can the New Nazi’s hang the lawyers?

  • Total non-solution. You don’t have facts on your side, just bullshit bromides from the do-nothing, corporate-ass-kissing GOP. Tort reform WILL NOT solve this – not even close ! Congrats on your “brilliant” contribution to the dialog which solves nothing – and the fatuous self-congratulation.

    People really need to grow-the-fuck up and ditch the childish bromides.

  • “And my my lower back pain is not so bad when driving in my leather Lexus seats, instead of the bus.”

    This has got to be parody. Hi-larious.

  • Mrs. Salazar Says:
    September 7th, 2009 at 1:14 pm

    “If we could just hang all the ambulance chasing lawyers who caused my doctor’s liability insurace to skyrocket, my doctor could return to his lower rates.”

    ……

    LOL. You really think your doctor raised your rates due to insurance costs? You’ll believe anything.

  • Um, I could be completely wrong about this, but I thought Mrs Salazar was doing a parody of some the comments above…

  • reg: F*** football.

    So, you’re against college football providing opportunities for young black men to get a college education and to become successful, when they might otherwise not even have a chance of going to college at all and learn important lessons for life while being on the team.

    Your knee jerks so fast to oppose anything that I say that you must have one swollen head from being hit by it…in addition to your normal swollen head.

  • Sisco, I’ve done the taxes for a lot of doctors, and you would be amazed at what they have to pay for malpractice insurance and how much that insurance soared with all the law suits. Yeah, rates have gone up because of that, and Obama is completely against limiting malpractice claims to help reduce those costs. Maybe he would be for it once the government has taken over.

  • “Fuck” Football?

    With the World Cup coming up next year, the US at the cusp of qualifying, Brazil having qualified and Argentina at risk f being eliminated, not to mention the EPL, Bundesliga, Serie A, La Liga Primera just getting under way?

    I don’t think so.

  • Randy – that was tongue in cheek for rational folk who aren’t willfully and loudly ignorant. For Woody, it was a comment on how twisted and blindered he happens to be.

  • Since insurance and malpractice costs are only 2% of health care spending – and the costs have been decreasing in recent years – the “it’s all lawyers fault” argument is nonsense. It’s also a fact that Obama has not simply taken this off the table but is willing to consider it as part of a larger package that actually addresses the major issues. Woody is blowing smoke out of his sagging ass, per usual. What a sad little man…

  • Woody – please don’t stick your flatulent butt into this discussion of health care until you’ve actually got something that makes sense. The stench is overpowering.

  • Reg is right. Medical malpractice as a problem is a red herring:

    According to the actuarial consulting firm Towers Perrin, medical malpractice tort costs were $30.4 billion in 2007, the last year for which data are available. We have a more than a $2 trillion health care system. That puts litigation costs and malpractice insurance at 1 to 1.5 percent of total medical costs. That’s a rounding error. Liability isn’t even the tail on the cost dog. It’s the hair on the end of the tail.

    In addition, I might add the two most populous states in the union, California and Texas have enacted caps on medical malpractice awards as have thirty other states.

    You might want to do a little research next time.

  • I see reg’s real problem with football. He’s into professional wrestling. He must like that sweaty groping of two men in the ropes.

    You guys are dealing with someone’s statistics that don’t reflect the burdens on individual practitioners. You fall into the same trap as Washington politicians. You rely on some numbers put together by people who aren’t in the field being surveyed and don’t consider small businesses/practices and the extended affects.

    If you talked to the individual doctors and saw the difficulty of the increased insurance premiums on them, particularly with OBGYN, then you would have a better perpective.

    I’ve seen physicians forced to drop the OB part of their practices and others forced to join large groups. Care becomes more limited, particularly in small towns. And, the physicians absorbed higher medical premiums until they couldn’t any more. From that point on, it gets passed on to the patient.

    But, a bigger problem is that physicians are forced to practice medicine based upon legal considerations as much as medical ones and recommend more tests and more costly tests using high technology machines. Some time back, my PCP recommended that I have some scanning, which was overkill and forced higher health care costs. I asked him if his recommendation was based upon legal or medical reasons. He let me know with a look.

    Oh, let’s not even talk about the additional costs of paperwork involved with this.

    So, do medical claims drive up costs more than the 2% that you cite? You betcha. You just can’t see far enough, like most liberals.

    But, what’s funny is that you say that malpractice insurance and claims don’t affect prices but then turnaround and say that Obama is considering caps on them and that many states adopted them…for no reason? Why don’t you tell Obama that he’s stupid for factoring in those? If this can be done by the states, then why is Obama making a federal case out it?

    Who needs to cite research when you know the information and can analyze it? You guys can’t do it on your own. If anyone can analyze numbers, it’s I and not you.

  • Who needs to cite research when you know the information and can analyze it?

    Because we know the difference between anecdotal information and national numbers.

  • Celeste:

    To answer your question (#4, above): Yes–I’m saying that after reading your blog for a while, I have developed the impression that if someone is a fool, a blowhard, and has contempt for America, chances are you might be drawn to his point of view.

  • Randy, you’re lazy or lying when you can’t see or admit that your “national numbers” require more analysis than just assuming that legal direct costs are all that have to be considered, despite there being significant legal indirect costs. No, you’re not lasy or lying. You’re just stupid, and too stupid to know it.

  • Randy, you’re lazy or lying when you can’t see or admit that your “national numbers” require more analysis than just assuming that legal direct costs are all that have to be considered, despite there being significant legal indirect costs. No, you’re not lasy or lying. You’re just stupid, and too stupid to know it.

    So in other words when you can’t come up with facts to buttress your argument, you call the other side stupid.

    You’ve got nothing, as usual.

  • It all comes clear – again. Arguing with Woody is a total waste of time…he doesn’t have a fucking clue, rants in circles, and is so mired in narcissistic bullshit, facts don’t really matter.

  • Incidentally, the extent to which unnecessary procedures drives up costs is intrinsically related to fee structures, treatment models and how doctors get paid, far more than “defensive medicine.” This is why Mayo can contain costs effectively and but those who are chasing maximum profits as their priority can’t.

  • Nobody has a “fucking clue” but Reg, what a self-centered hateful piece of dung, an old demented loser who even says fuck football. You’re a class act Mr. Dementia, what a dick.

    The arrogance of the left should never surprise anyone and your little one liners prove nothing except you hate anyone who doesn’t fit into what you think the world’s about. A bunch of light-weight Bill Mahers with nothing to offer but the continuation of failure.

    Rob-there’s no real open market now or I could go through a health insurer anywhere in the country and modify a plan to meet my needs, and it would be affordable. Who are you trying to kid? Certainly private insurers want to turn a profit like any other business, when did that become a crime? The point is that more competition will always spawn lesser prices for at times a better product while limited competition does the exact opposite. If that’s too hard for you to understand maybe you should look right now at the trucking industry, restaurant industry, hotel industry and about a thousand others. My family is in the restaurant industry and by adapting with the times keep turning a nice profit where others haven’t or have folded.

    All the extreme left does is eat their own and anyone in their way on this issue, ( Whole foods Boycott anyone?) the thought process you guys have is really demeaning to anyone you think is less educated than you are on the issue.

    Where the answer is simple people like you want to add layer after layer of regulation to muck it up, screw that. A straight line is the easiest way to get from point a to point b. Simple answers confuse people invested in ideologies that demand confusion, that’s why we have lawyers running the show in this country and that’s what we’ve become a country ruled by orchestrated chaos.

    Or are you so stupid that you think we needed a 1000 or so page bill to come up with a coherent policy on the issue. more is needed than just open competition but I haven’t seen anything offered up by the dems that will lower squat.

    Oh yeah, the past going back to Reg’s school-mate Teddy Rough Rider does what on the issues we’re confronted with today (conditions even close to being the same?) except to show Reg can use the internet? Fraudulent bs that means nothing as usual.

  • Randy, many studies have shown that defensive medicine is a significant additional costs that is a direct result of the malpractice lawsuit climate. Your continued denial of this is irrational, both because defensive medicine costs are not only backed by studies, but are also a readily predictable effect.

    Furthermore, malpractice insurance rates have been increasing at twice the rate of overall medical costs, meaning they will be more of a problem in the future.

    Finally, recent research is showing that a lot of “preventive medicine” and defensive medicine is actually a net harm to the patients.

    We may all disagree with Woody about some things, but when he speaks from doing accounting for doctors, he has first hand experience, which is directly corroborated by studies. A specific anecdote, which is typical of the field of OB, is that an OB friend of mine was forced to give up charitable OB work on a nearby medical reservation because of the threat of malpractice suits.

    It is not possible to be serious about the national health care problem without addressing this issue.

  • This is why Mayo can contain costs effectively and but those who are chasing maximum profits as their priority can’t.

    Utter nonsense. There are plenty of not-for-profit hospitals in the country (including the one that gave Obama’s wife a $100,000/yr raise when he was elected to the Senate). They do not have a better cost containment record than the for-profit ones.

    Mayo is a special case – a very good special case. It does not succeed because it is non-profit – it succeeds because of good management and good philosophy. We are fortunate to have a Mayo Clinic and their first Mayo Hospital here in the valley, and I have seen it first hand. BTW, that hospital has ONLY private rooms. There are a couple of other clinics around the country that operate in a similar way, also with good results.

    I have never, ever seen a government run institution in any field (with the exception of small, elite military units) that has the same efficiency, effectiveness and high morale of Mayo.

  • Moore – you’re a fool. All you did was validate my points about Mayo. Your wankery is gratuitious and tendentioius bullshit that proves nothing in contradiction to my comment.

    Surefire – suck on it. You’re a burnt out lose.

  • oops -” loser” if that wasn’t self-evident. Has this guy ever added anything other than his own vomit to a discussion ?

  • Well gee, Sure Fire, how come there’s no market for the health insurance you’d like to buy? At the affordable price you want to pay? So first you bemoan the lack of a market then you want to passively quibble that the those private insurers are entitled to their profits. Every 90 seconds, an American family files for bankruptcy brought on by medical bills. 75% of these bankruptcies were of people who had health insurance. There’s 25 million Americans in these straights right now.
    And you want more of these markets? Does it not strike you as a bit of fix that the lobbyists for the health industry can fill the capital to the chandeliers with money to keep that market rigged against you? Yet you want to me to accept your argument that health insurance is like trucking, restaurants, etc.? OK prove it. Show me how there’s rational market actors who exchange goods and services in the neat little linear transactions your small thinking comes up with. Explain why it is when you go to the doctor you don’t know the cost of the stethoscope or the latex gloves or the lab works the doc ordered but your employer has paid for it all by the time you leave the hospital. Admit it. You’re lost already. You don’t have a clue how the health market works, do you? I pity you. You demand easy answers to questions you can not even wrap you mind around.
    God save this republic.

  • Winny, clean your glasses. You’re having vision issues.

    Sure Fire, I knew you were joking.

    As for the rest, except for the gay and fart references, and the like, this is actually quite an enjoyable discussion.

    WBC, re: Moyers: “he is one of our greatest living humanists.” Well said. I still have the Joseph Campbell—Masks of God— series on video tape. It was simply brilliant. One of my favorite things I ever remember PBS doing.

  • Well Gee Rob if the market isn’t now open to what I’m talking about and the discussion is just now moving in that direction how would you know if there’s a market or not? I would certainly, as would all my relatives and friends, search out more of the type plan that would fit my needs best, at a lower cost, and not mandate any type of specific coverage as the current health care bills floating through congress now do, if given the chance. If you and anyone else here says they don’t you’re liars.

    I don’t need the government telling me the type of insurance I need or do anything more than allow me the avenue to pursue what fits me best. What part of my post didn’t you get Einstein? Of course insurers will make a profit but is Insurer A going to cut their own throats for some astronomical profit line when Insurer B provides the same product for substantially less? Are you under the impression insurers shouldn’t make money?

    As for the health market Rob, do you work in it? Any first hand knowledge of the costs associated with health care? Give me your expertise or your just mouthing off with nothing to say.

    You’re an obvious proponent of Obamacare which means you’re for heavily subsidizing the premiums of others at the expense of a nice tax increase that will hit the middle class, a standard packages of benefits with low deductibles for all Americans and remember those type policies typically contain everything from in-vitro fertilization to mental health benefits and are usually far more expensive than anything most people would pay for with their own money. i don’t need that Rob.

    You’re also for a plan that would impose on a federal level the doctrine of community rating, in which all customers have to be offered the same rates, regardless of their health risks. Community rating forces young people to pay far more than their actual cost, a main reason for today’s 46 million uninsured, while it subsidizes older patients.

    You’re also all for banning consumers from buying private insurance across state lines, perpetuating the price differences in today’s fragmented market, instead of allowing all Americans to shop anywhere for the best deals.

    Lastly, for now you’re apparently ok with a “public option,” or a Medicare-style plan that would compete with the private offerings. The previous things I spoke on would make the private plans extremely expensive. With the same subsidies, the Medicare-style plan could put them out of business.

    Thus the government takeoover of our countries health insurance is complete.

    We disagree Einstein.

    Oh yeah, Moyers, a humanist that hunted homosexuals in the LBJ White House and tried to shift the blame to J.Edgar Hoover but got caught with his hand in the cookie jar, please spare me the adulation for this guy.

  • Woody Says:
    September 7th, 2009 at 3:29 pm

    Sisco, I’ve done the taxes for a lot of doctors, and you would be amazed at what they have to pay for malpractice insurance and how much that insurance soared with all the law suits. Yeah, rates have gone up because of that,

    …….

    Sure.

  • Woody Says:
    September 7th, 2009 at 6:43 pm

    “If you talked to the individual doctors and saw the difficulty of the increased insurance premiums on them, particularly with OBGYN, then you would have a better perpective.”

    ……

    You mean if we were gullible enough to believe them?

  • Sure Fire Says:
    September 7th, 2009 at 8:25 pm

    “what a self-centered hateful piece of dung, an old demented loser who even says fuck football.”

    ………..

    LOL.

  • Sure Fire says:

    “we’ve become a country ruled by orchestrated chaos.”

    ……

    What the fuck is orchestrated chaos? Can chaos be orchestrated?

  • John Moore Says:
    September 7th, 2009 at 8:31 pm

    “We may all disagree with Woody about some things, but when he speaks from doing accounting for doctors, he has first hand experience, which is directly corroborated by studies.”

    …….

    A) We don’t know for certain Woody was ever an accountant for any doctor. I’m betting he’s never done any such thing.

    B) Woody’s supposed findings during his accounting experiences in question are only corroborated by studies funded by people who are full of shit themselves. But I agree with you in that we do all disagree with Woody. You nailed that.

  • Sure is “orchastrated chaos”, hell Sisco I’ve done it, trust me. Just for your info I’ve read where doctors who give free time on reservations have had to quit due to lawsuits, it’s crazy.

    I know you’re more local than national Celeste, but you going to do something on Van Jones? The stuff that’s come out over the last 24 hours about this idiot is unreal. The main stream media not only didn’t do their job in checking this guy out but showed they are 100% lap dogs for Obama.

    What a disgrace Obama is to let this guy within 100 yards of the White House.

  • JM,

    Not a single cite for your claims.

    Assuming that the rates are going up even when 64% of the states have capped awards, then it seems to me that the problem is with the insurance companies.

    I provided facts.

    Woody provided anecdotal evidence. You provided some recylced talking points.

  • ” ‘orchastrated chaos’, hell Sisco I’ve done it, trust me.”

    Yeah, no shit. Read any of this pusbag Surefire’s comments – which happen to not make any sense if you actually know anything about the health insurance markets. Basically this idiots “solutions” invalidate the whole point of insurance because everything he proposes simply increases the ability of insurance companies to cherry-pick the pools of who they insure. Total fucking idiocy. And anyone with half a brain can see through it. He really shouldn’t be bringing up the subject of dementia…because it’s reflected in all of his comments.

  • Randy, are you too stupid to see that I took your data and applied an analysis to it that you couldn’t do on your own–in fact, an analysis that considers not just the direct costs but the indirect costs, which are real. You and reg are losers on this.

  • “You and reg are losers”
    “You’re just stupid”

    Why do right-wing extremists always resort to shrill name-calling and impolite behavior? You’re not going to convince anyone of anything that way.

  • Randy, are you too stupid to see that I took your data and applied an analysis to it that you couldn’t do on your own–in fact, an analysis that considers not just the direct costs but the indirect costs, which are real. You and reg are losers on this.

    There you go with the insults again.

    You ignored the fact that there are caps on these claims in most of the country and that as a percentage of total health care costs it is in fact, small.

    As for the costs of malpractice insurance, why not provide us with the costs of malpractice insurance in our two most populous states, California and Texas, both of which have 250K caps on damages awards and see what the rates are like there? If the rates there are high, then the issue may very well be able to be resolved by regulating the carriers more closely.

    It seems that’s a lot more sensible than stamping your feet and calling people names.

  • Woody – did your doctor make any money by doing the test for you – or was “a look” sufficient explanation of the entire transaction. As an accountant, one might have thought you would ask this simple question.

    I also assume you know that Georgia has had a law since 2005 signed by Sonny Perdue that does exactly what you guys are whining about, limiting any recovery from proven malpractice. Of course, malpractice insurance rates didn’t go down.

    Maybe that doctor was giving you that “look” because he knows you’re an idiot. And a loser…

  • Randy, I wasn’t making an insult but simply an observation as to why you couldn’t comprehend such a simple concept as properly analyzing statistics. I don’t think that you’re dishonest, so it must be that you can’t understand, which is okay, except it’s frustrating when one is help you understaand.

    – – –

    reg, you idiot (meant as truth and an insult).

    Georgia does not place a cap on the amount of compensatory damages that may be awarded. However, punitive damages are capped at $350,000…. There is no limitation on attoney fees in a medical malpractice action.

    But, a court has declared the Georgia medical malpractice Cap as being unconstitutional</ba, and the issue is still being appealed and litigated in various venues.

    My doctor didn’t make a dime off of me for additonal tests. He referred me to the hospital’s imaging department. I know my doctor pretty well, and he doesn’t need extra income from unnecessary tests. However, he’s also not stupid and will take extra steps to avoid medical malpractice, even if punitive damages only are capped at a mere $350,000, which is enough for anyone to want to avoid. My doctor gave me that “look” because he knows that I’m no fool.

    Still, your stupid analysis doesn’t consider the far reaching effects of defensive medicine.

    You know, you really don’t know what you’re talking about and you can’t analyze data correctly. You sit there googling information and consulting idiotic left-wing sites without any real knowledge of these subjects. You’re nothing but a parrot.

  • Sure Fire, Van Jones didn’t bother me. I agree with everything he said. I also believe it’s unfortunate he resigned. Obama was linked to Reverend Wright in last year’s election and still won in a landslide. Most voters view Wall Street as a bigger threat than black people who have the gall to criticize white people. So, it doesn’t make since that Jones caved in and resigned. When Obama gets reelected hopefully people like Jones will start making their way back into the public light.

  • I wasn’t making an insult but simply an observation

    LOL! Oh, this is an interesting contortion. So the following isn’t an insult, but rather an “observation”:

    “No, you’re not lasy [sic] or lying. You’re just stupid”

    Apparently, we can now hurl insults at Woody provided we simply claim they are “observations”, which will magically convert them into non-insults. Of course, this means now we no longer have to endure his and Roper’s silly game where they pretend they are constantly subjected to the crude and brutish insults of the Left. After all, they’re just observations!

    Here’s an observation: Woody (hereby known as “Stoopid”) is simply a dishonest and mind-numbingly stupid troll. No insult intended, of course–just an observation.

  • First of all, the only conceivably valid issue is punitive damages, not compensatory – almost by definition. So a $350,000 cap on punitive damages is major. Second, malpractice insurance rates didn’t decline when the law was in effect. Address this or consider your argument the usual stupid shit you spew. Third, I didn’t know that the law was (very recently) invalidated and under litigation. But since it didn’t have any affect on insurance rates, it doesn’t matter for your doctor’s costs. And, fourth, of course attorney’s fees are part of any successful claim, and generally only successful claims, so that’s a straw man.

    Your argument is fraudulent. Most over-testing is done for profit. Maybe not in your doctors case – but since I don’t trust a word out of your mouth, I’m not sure about that either. Tests and “aggressive” treatment are profit centers. And most studies show that treatment models – like Mayos’ – that are centered on effectiveness are as good or better. Don’t bullshit us that this isn’t a major factor in medical costs – far greater than the cost of malpractice insurance or the “defensive medicine” argument (that appears to be the entirety of your contributions to these discussions.) Only a completely ignorant ideologue would latch onto this weak bullshit.

  • Woody – do you want to limit compensatory (actual) damages in medical malpractice cases ?

    I just wanted to verify how far you’ll go in stripping people of their constitutional rights…

  • Price Waterhouse published a study in 2006 concluding that the costs of medical malpractice lawsuits including “defensive” medicine issues, malpractice premiums and actual costs comprised about ten percent of all health costs.

    That’s a dime for every dollar. Hardly a huge number.

  • From Wellpoint, an insurance company:

    Despite the common belief that costs increase due to excess insurer profits, the aging of America and the high cost of medical malpractice, these factors have little if any impact on health care premiums. The key drivers of health care premium increases are advances in medical technology and subsequent increases in utilization, excess price inflation for medical services, cost-shifting, the high cost of regulatory compliance and patient lifestyles (e.g., physical inactivity and increases in obesity). Though still a factor, prescription drugs contribute less significantly to rising health care costs due to the increased use of generic medications.

    The pdf file is here.

  • Right, Randy. Apparently numerous factors, to you, don’t really contribute to higher health care costs. Forget the collective impact. Then, first you say that malpractice defense amounts to only 2% of the cost and then you say it’s 10%. Who knows? It might be 20% next time.

    I’m not going to read every study that you present, as it’s a waste of time, and your analyses are always wrong. Also, the preparers of the studies haven’t provided any “assurances” of the data and its analyses, as is done with audited financial statements (which you thought was the same as auditing records played on the radio.) These are estimates, and the studies show that. Plus, you have to look at who presents the data and for whom it is prepared to tell if they have an ax to grind in the debate.

    But, immediately, from PwC’s study I see that “increased utilization” accounts for 43% of the increase in premiums (an increase, by the way, that is a lot lower than alarmist liberals would have you believe and it’s dropping – after goverment mandates dropped.) Don’t you think that “increased utilization” is driven by defensive medicine? Well, now we’ve gone from 2% to 10% to some major part of the 43% range.

    Let’s see another quote from them that you left out.

    PwC attributes utilization increases primarily to increased consumer demand, new medical treatments, and more intensive diagnostic testing due partially [mostly] to the practice of defensive medicine.

    I’m not even reading any more of this. You’re wasting my time.

    – – –

    reg, I see. You agree with Obama that doctors remove tonsils just to make more money. But, you trust the government. Brilliant. You better avoid going to any of those private doctors since you don’t trust them.

    – – –

    Nicholas, my “observation” was to support a thought in a debate where I was engaged. Your liberal “observations” are meant to actually avoid debate, because you will lose, and to insult. There’s a distinction that makes mine acceptable and your’s an admission of defeat and failure.

  • was to support a thought in a debate where I was engaged

    This means absolutely nothing. Spineless twisting and sloppy evasiveness. You’ve gussied up “observation” with “support a thought in a debate”–nonsense replaced with even more vague nonsense. Once again, you are too small of a man to admit when you contradict yourself, as you do over and over and over again.

    “There’s a distinction that makes mine acceptable and your’s [sic] an admission of defeat and failure.”

    Precisely: it’s called an imaginary line in your mixed-up head.

    Here’s support for a thought about an observation in a debate whereby you are engaged in a discussion between you and yourself: you are an idiot.

    Now, go away.

  • Woody – The only relevant question about the years that the Georgia caps were in effect is did malpractice insurance go down in price ?

    (The answer is no. Which is why your argument is bullshit.)

    As for my other points, you obviously have no response.

  • The irony of this argument about “defensive medicine” is that one person’s plan to contain the costs of “defensive medicine” is another person’s “plot to kill grandma” by withholding the full gamut of available services.

    There is no way that over-testing can be “scientifically” weighed in terms of three factors – one being demanding patients that doctors simply want to assuage, the second being fear of being accused of malpriactice down the line and the third being tests and especially high-tech procedures being profit-centers for providers, be they doctors or hospitals. Knowing what we know about human nature, I’ll put money on all three as being contributive (although, frankly in states where there are caps on punitive damages for malpractice, the limits of containing this piece have obviously been reached and some of this “defensive medicine” is actually prudence in the patient’s interest), but the biggest drive is without question profitability in fee-for-service environment. Alternative models are absolutely essential – apparently Mayo has a successful approach that is cost-reductive. But I don’t hear anything other than lip service and platitudes from “conservative” shills. It’s all yammering about lawyers, which is 90% bullshit.

  • And I’d be more than willing to have a full discussion of the malpractice issue with someone who was honest and had integrity in looking at the big picture. Woody is not such a person.

  • Then, first you say that malpractice defense amounts to only 2% of the cost and then you say it’s 10%.

    Actually, that’s not what I said. Malpractice defense costs do amount to that figure. The additional component that is a result of “defensive medicine” is not a direct malpractice defense cost. If you were doing my accounting and you attributed the “defensive medicine” component as a malpractice defense cost, I’d fire you.

    But, immediately, from PwC’s study I see that “increased utilization” accounts for 43% of the increase in premiums (an increase, by the way, that is a lot lower than alarmist liberals would have you believe and it’s dropping – after goverment mandates dropped.) Don’t you think that “increased utilization” is driven by defensive medicine? Well, now we’ve gone from 2% to 10% to some major part of the 43% range.

    No, if you read the quote accurately, you’ll note the following (I have italicized the key points that appear to have eluded you):

    PwC attributes utilization increases primarily to increased consumer demand, new medical
    treatments, and more intensive diagnostic testing due
    partially to the practice of defensive medicine. An aging population and increasingly unhealthy lifestyles were also contributors.

    Allow me to dumb this down for you; there are five reasons given for the utilization increases:

    1.) Increased consumer demand
    2.) New Medical treatments
    3.) More intensive diagnostic testing
    4.) An aging population
    5.) Increasing unhealthy lifestyles

    I assume you know what the word partially means, notwithstanding your wholesale and wholly unsupported insertion of the word “mostly” (btw, glad to see that you have accepted my argument that box brackets are to be used in such circumstances. I’ll consider it progress on your part). So the five reasons cited above are subsets of the whole. “[T]he practice of defensive medicine” is essentially a subset of the third reason listed making it a subset of a subset.

    I will make an assumption here and I will acknowledge it as such: I believe that these reasons were listed in order of importance and I think that there is a convincing argument for that.

    So, by all means, feel free to insult me and call me names. I’ll continue to supply this comments thread with facts.

  • Randy: If you were doing my accounting and you attributed the “defensive medicine” component as a malpractice defense cost, I’d fire you.

    Yeah, right. First, I would never work for you. I have certain standards to uphold. Second, if that situation did occur with someone else, then you would be wrong. CPAs are supposed to report actual findings, not what you want to hear.

    The PwC “study” that you quote would not stand up to any measure of professional accounting standards. It is a special report to a specific client, and its results clearly cannot be interpreted by you or outside parties to whom it wasn’t written or privy to the terms of the engagement letter.

    What you “believe” and what is the truth aren’t necessarily the same. You assume too much, and PwC relied too much on “estimations” to have validity.

    – – –

    reg, the co-called caps did not cap the total awards and did not affect attorney fees at all. The incentive for attorneys to sue over anything hasn’t changed. The cases still have to be litigated, and that’s where major costs occur.

    Also, insurance companies aren’t going to reduce premiums until they see a meanigful reduction in claims (and other costs), and the total cap just on punitive damages still far exceeds the cost of litigation, so it has limited usefulness in its current form.

    Since the cap issue is being litigated and relatively new, it would not have had enough time since implementation and for insurance accounnting to have an impact, even assuming that it capped everything. It would take several years of a real cap to reflect that.

    Your analysis and what you believe, as does Randy, provides no evidence of being valid.

    And, yes, Obama would kill Grandma by limiting medical care to the elderly. There aren’t enough resources to go around to cover deadbeats and the elderly. Check out the death manual for veterans as an example.

    You guys want to believe the unbelievable. You are a waste of time.

  • Randy and Reg have reduce what could have been a useful discussion to a bunch of insult throwing.

    But here’s one from Randy:

    Price Waterhouse published a study in 2006 concluding that the costs of medical malpractice lawsuits including “defensive” medicine issues, malpractice premiums and actual costs comprised about ten percent of all health costs.

    That’s a dime for every dollar. Hardly a huge number.

    Randy, that’s a HUGE number. When you consider that malpractice rates are rising rapidly, it will get bigger.

    It may be tiny to you, but it’s enough to provide insurance to a hell of a lot of uninsured.

  • “Randy and Reg have reduce what could have been a useful discussion to a bunch of insult throwing.”

    Ah, forgive me: I forgot to include John Moore in the boo-hoo insult circus, along with Roper and Woody. You constantly whine about insults from those dastardly liberals, and then conveniently skip over the instigating insults from the resident troll.

    Oh, wait, sorry: not insults, but “support for thoughts about a debate which therefore constitute objections”. Yeah, that’s it.

    Honestly, now I can understand why reg constantly cusses you jokers out: you can’t seem to dialogue sincerely and with integrity. Always a partisan spin; always an evasion. What a bore.

  • The caps on punitive damages were in place for several years and had no impact. There’s no arguing around this. Also, you can’t cap compensatory (actual) damages. That’s absurd.
    This is a red herring and you’re impervious to facts. Your insane bullshit about the “veterans death manual” is proof of your derangement.

  • Also John – 10% may be “huge”, but there’s no proof, not even a little bit, that anything close to the entire 10% is waste or fraud. That’s an absurd notion. So you guys are arguing at the margins and, frankly, aside from the idiotic “race to the bottom” deregulation that’s embedded in the scheme to circumvent state insurance regulation, that’s about all we get from “conservatives.” It’s a joke.

  • John Moore considers it “insult-throwing” to be outed as a crypto-fascist who believes journalists should be hung for doing their jobs under the First Amendment and that Walter Cronkite was a “traitor.” The only insult is having to treat him like he’s a normal person rather than a total crank who pushes obscenities as a matter of course.

  • From the recent New Yorker article on McAllen TX:

    In 1992, in the McAllen market, the average cost per Medicare enrollee was $4,891, almost exactly the national average. But since then, year after year, McAllen’s health costs have grown faster than any other market in the country, ultimately soaring by more than ten thousand dollars per person.
    “Maybe the service is better here,” the cardiologist suggested. People can be seen faster and get their tests more readily, he said.
    Others were skeptical. “I don’t think that explains the costs he’s talking about,” the general surgeon said.
    “It’s malpractice,” a family physician who had practiced here for thirty-three years said.
    “McAllen is legal hell,” the cardiologist agreed. Doctors order unnecessary tests just to protect themselves, he said. Everyone thought the lawyers here were worse than elsewhere.
    That explanation puzzled me. Several years ago, Texas passed a tough malpractice law that capped pain-and-suffering awards at two hundred and fifty thousand dollars. Didn’t lawsuits go down?
    “Practically to zero,” the cardiologist admitted.
    “Come on,” the general surgeon finally said. “We all know these arguments are bullshit. There is overutilization here, pure and simple.” Doctors, he said, were racking up charges with extra tests, services, and procedures.
    The surgeon came to McAllen in the mid-nineties, and since then, he said, “the way to practice medicine has changed completely. Before, it was about how to do a good job. Now it is about ‘How much will you benefit?’ ”

    http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_gawande?currentPage=all

    And the most recent factual overview – from a consumer’s coalition – on the myths being spread about malpractice costs and the impact (or none) of “tort reform”:

    http://www.insurance-reform.org/TrueRiskF.pdf

    But hey, some doctor gave Woody a “look” and Woody’s an accountant who knows the VA is witholding care from veterans by forcing them to read a “death manual”, so don’t believe your lying eyes when you read anything written by folks who aren’t insane and who actually study empirical evidence or go into the field and investigate the real world.

  • JM,

    What reg said at 111.

    I might add that I haven’t been throwing the insults, Woodrow has. A dime for every dollar is also a worst case scenario. You are assuming that every instance is fraud. If someone is injured because of medical malpractice and cannot work, surely you don’t think that they shouldn’t be compensated, do you?

    As for Woody’s comments, they have all the intellectual rigor of mere contradiction.

  • Second, if that situation did occur with someone else, then you would be wrong. CPAs are supposed to report actual findings, not what you want to hear.

    So you would recommend that all of those expenses get lumped together in one line item? Insurance premiums, deductibles etc.?

  • “If someone is injured because of medical malpractice and cannot work, surely you don’t think that they shouldn’t be compensated, do you?”

    Since they believe they should be demonized as the reason our health care costs are out of control, the next logical step is to cut off their compensation. Otherwise what’s the point of this discussion ?

  • How liberals get politicians to approve stupid, giveaway programs…like above, they are relentless and keep it up until the side of reason gets tired of fighting them. I’ve seen people working harder to get out of work than just work, but this beats all.

    – – –

    Randy, your comment #115 is too pathetic and reveals your obvious lack of understanding. It’s like saying that the total expenses on an income statement don’t mean anything and that only the individual line items need to be considered, so don’t even group or total them for analyses.

    – – –

    reg, your “several years” isn’t enough to establish any reasonable experience data. Admit it. The system has to be put into place, operate for an extended period, wait for lawsuits to be filed and settled which takes years, accounted for after the close those periods, and adjustment decisions made and implemented.

    Maybe Obama can get GM to project the cost of labor and manufacturing and bring down the price of cars while adding more sophistication to them. He expects miracles from others.

    Your New Yorker story, while I didn’t read all of it, is just more liberal anecdotal whining and is not authoritative. The author even makes comments like this, as if she could just look and tell anything (isn’t that what you said about me and my doctor). I was impressed. The place had virtually all the technology that you’d find at Harvard and Stanford and the Mayo Clinic… At least I had experience in communicating with and understanding my personal physician. Your article is a joke. But, since McAllen is on the border, rising costs are probably affected by all of those illegal Mexicans that the author failed to mention.

    No, I wouldn’t cap compensatory damages, but I sure would take incentives away from the sue-happy trial lawyers that Obama defends. Their campaign contributions to the Democrats have bought them immunity at the cost of average “working families.”

    I would reduce all the government mandates and regulations that drive health administrative costs even higher.

    Here’s your government health care results: FACTS ABOUT THE “MASSACHUSETTS MODEL”

    If I was an insurance company wondering what the heck Obama was doing or that he might freeze premiums, I’d be raising rates as fast as I could even without acturarial justification. Plus, you might as well while you can, since Obama’s committed to putting private insurers out of business.

  • I’m not bothering to read your raving horseshit Woody. You didhn’t read the article – I can tell scanning that moronic response that you bring up crap like “the border” that’s dealt with in the article effectively. But since you’re too fucking stupid to responde with any coherence and you’re mind is a sewer that only spews rightwing talking points and is impervious to fact, you can go fuck yourself. Shove your drivel up your ass It’s garbage. You’re garbage. Get lost.

  • Woody – this is the fifth or sixth paragraph of the article – very near the beginning – so you obviously didn’t read it. Don’t come back at me with shit that’s already been debunked. It’s why you’re a total waste of time:

    “El Paso County, eight hundred miles up the border, has essentially the same demographics. Both counties have a population of roughly seven hundred thousand, similar public-health statistics, and similar percentages of non-English speakers, illegal immigrants, and the unemployed. Yet in 2006 Medicare expenditures (our best approximation of over-all spending patterns) in El Paso were $7,504 per enrollee—half as much as in McAllen.”

  • Also, rather than read mendacious, insane crap posted by Woody about “death books”, read the book itself.

    http://stevebuyer.house.gov/Assets/your_life_your_choices.pdf

    Here’s what the right-wing blogger Charles Johnson of Little Green Footbals has to say about his “comrades”, who he’s increasingly finding embarrassing:

    “It’s another ‘death’ boogeyman from a party that should be asking real questions about the health care legislation, but can only seem to muster up cheap alarmist scare tactics intended to confuse and mislead….

    “Read it for yourself. The accusation that this is some kind of encouragement for euthanasia is so cynically stupid it makes my eyes water.”

    (Personally I’m increasingly fine with the GOP descending into the depths of WoodyWorld. At the rate they’re sinking into that swamp, it will take several decades to crawl back.)

Leave a Comment