Eric Cantor’s Funny Ties To Health Care Firms

One of the drawbacks of living in the Richmond area is the dearth of penetrating reporting in
the local daily rag. Luckily for me, The New York Times finally started home delivery last week in the piney woods edge of Chesterfield County where I have lived for the past nine years.
True, I get the Wall Street Journal, which is great in its own way, but one really needs a counter balance to the increasingly awful Richmond Times-Dispatch which is shamelessly biased in favor of some crazed concept of “Richmond” as defined by its arrogant and out-of-touch publisher and constant cheer leading for the home-town boy congressman Eric Cantor, whose wife sits on the board of the owner of the newspaper.
So, it is strange that one has to get local insights from the Times, specifically from one of my favorite columnists, Frank Rich, who has ties to Richmond and helped edit the scrappy Richmond Mercury alternative newspaper many moons ago.
In his Sunday column, Rich took apart Cantor and his ties to big health insurance companies. As House Minority Whip, Cantor is leading the charge against any “public option” to provide customers with an alternative to private health insurance. The for-profit companies have benefited immensely from “managed care” that got its start back int he 1970s with the view that doctors and other professionals could not contain costs.
But with managed care, big companies such as UnitedHealth Group have enjoyed tremendous pricing power sometimes demanding double digit hikes in premiums in a system that no can understand, let alone challenge.
President Barack Obama wants a complete overhaul but has botched the job so badly that people like Cantor can easily do the bidding of the powerful insurance companies. Cantor and his fellow conservatives have led a charge against the “public option” which will probably get dumped as legislators try to merge parts of five separate House and Senate bills into one.
But let’s back up. Cantor comes down strongly against the public option. According to Rich of the Times, Cantor regularly cites data bashing the public option from the research firm Lewin Group. The firm claims that if there were a public option, some 88 million Americans might bolt from their private plans. Big Insurance doesn’t like the idea of such competition so they are marshaling their messenger boys such as Cantor to shout it down. Never mind that the Congressional Budget Office estimates that only about 11 million people with private insurance would switch to a government alternative if one were available.
Let’s connect some dots:
  • The Lewin Group is wholly owned by UnitedHealth Group. So, one might question the sanctity of the data it projects.
  • More specifically, according to The Washington Post, Lewin Group is part of a UnitedHealth subsidiary called Ingenix which has been accused by the New York attorney general of helping insurers shift medical expenses to customers by monkeying data. True the New York AGs office is pretty activist, but even the venerable and conservative American Medical Association makes the exact, same accusation. Lewin officials told the Post that Lewin had nothing to do with the scheme but had had “adjustment” issues when it was bought by UnitedHealth in 2007.
  • Speaking of UnitedHealth, guess whose political campaigns it bankrolls? Eric Cantor’s, that who. The Huffington Post reported in August that Cantor and fellow GOP leader Rep. John Boehner of Ohio have taken roughly $60,000 in contributions from UnitedHealth. Cantor got something like $28,000. The Huff Post said that a Cantor aide labelled the contribution story as a “distraction.

Guess where one never reads anything about these odd strands of thread? The Richmond Times-Dispatch, that’s where.

On Sept. 21, the newspaper held another one of its Phil Donahue shows with the publisher plays emcee featuring Cantor and Democratic Rep. Bobby Scott talking about health care reform.
The newspaper repeated several times the opinions of the politicians and those of some of the citizen attendees, who were patronized horribly by the publisher when he said they were “civil” as if the the general public were third graders who might pee on a potted plant if given the chance.
It’s too bad the newspaper keeps dumbing down its reporting to the readers it is supposed to serve instead of actually reporting on the politicians it is supposed to watch. Holding Donahue shows is a lot cheaper than keeping on veteran reporters who might have the wit and skill to look at some campaign contribution reports.
And it is too bad that when it comes to Eric Cantor, The Richmond Times-Dispatch comes like off like Richmondesque Pravda, the official mouthpiece of the ruling local political party.
Peter Galuszka



Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

53 responses to “Eric Cantor’s Funny Ties To Health Care Firms”

  1. Larry G Avatar

    the thought occurred to me that if Cantor and his Tea Party cohorts REALLY believed what they say they believe – they'd all refuse Medicare and burn their parents Medicare Cards also to show their resolve.

    You know – you do not have to use Medicare – you can choose to make your own arrangements so I find it interesting that the folks who oppose the public option for those younger than 65 apparently have no qualms at all for those over 65 including their own parents.

    Anyone know anyone who refuses Medicare on philosophical grounds?

    there must be some .. seems like a like of gray haired folks showed up at the town halls.

    These folks could form their own company – with Eric Cantors help.. I'm sure he would sponsor legislation for the non-Medicare option for those who do not believe that govt care is the right answer.

    Hey.. and what about all those parasitic dependents on the govt-operated military Tricare sysem?

    the hypocrisy hangs thick in the air these days…

    we should call these folks " I've got mine so S__ew you" party.

    Anyone who currently uses govt-provided health care or their family members use it – and who opposes that same option for others has some "splaining" to do.

  2. Bubbles Avatar

    Is there ever a better time for a competent Democ. to step up and challenge this greasy creep?

  3. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "The firm claims that if there were a public option, some 88 million Americans might bolt from their private plans."

    So lets see if we understand this argument.

    The GOP claims "the people don't want a public option because 88 million people might bolt from their private plan to pick up the public one.

    And the Dems claim that "the people" do want a public option becuause only 11 million wil take advantage of it.

    Is that the argument I'm hearing?

    If that is the case, and since it is by definition optional, why not throw it in the mix and see what happens.

    If 88 million people sign up, then the Dems can apologize to the GOP: "You were right, no one wanted it." And if 11 million peole sign up the GOP can aplogize to the Dems: "You were right, it wsn' that big of a Govenment intrusion.

    RH

    RH

  4. life insurance Canada Avatar
    life insurance Canada

    Hello and thank you for your article. I don't think that health insurance should be under monopoly, quite the opposite. As I am Canadian and we have a single-payer insurance system, I must say that people should have the possibility to pay their insurace. It is less costly, but mainly I know what I pay for.

    Take care,

    Lorne

  5. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "…but mainly I know what I pay for."

    Lorne, if that were actually the case in the US, then we would not be having this debate.

    One of the problems here is that you pay for something, and then don't get it.

    RH

  6. Hey it has been truly said that all this yelling up is just politics and seriously no one cares for the public opinion. If this is the case let us all stand united against it.
    ================================
    Jacob
    Debt

  7. Accurate Avatar

    Come on guys, you make this WAY too easy.

    There are a myriad of problems with the 'public option' – including our paying for illegal aliens (yes, it says they won't but the democrats refuse to include language that would prove that they are citizens), abortions (again the democrats refuse to include language prohibiting it), where the actual funding will come from (please don't tell me you actually believe Obama's fantasy math). There is the problem of adding all these new people but we are already stretching our doctors, the studies referring to that disproportionate ratio are all over the net.

    Medicare?? Haha, you mean the plan that (as it exists) will be insolvent by or before 2020? You mean the plan that reimburses doctors so little (since it's still paying fee schedules that are decades old). I have a brother-in-law who is a doctor and he refuses to see any more medicare patients for just that reason.

    There is the problem of exactly what the public plan will cover. Will it cover birth control? Viagra? Breast enhancement? Sex change operations?

    Finally, for Larry – if the flipping plan is SO GOOD. Then all federal government officials and employees should be required to be in it. But it's not that good, it never will be. What it will do is give us lines, it will give us rationing. Bottom line, if you like the DMV, you will love public health care.

  8. Larry G Avatar

    The problems with Medicare are the same problems with private healthcare and with other healthcare systems such as the VA, Tricare (for the military), the Federal benefit plans and the other industrialized countries plans.

    Private Healthcare insurance – right now – with no changes will ALSO ..GO BROKE and will also not reimburse at adequate levels.

    The way that pvt companies will deal with this is they will double the cost of their premiums and dumb more people.

    Medicare cannot toss people out of coverage.

    And if you think our pvt healthcare is so good – read this:

    " In 1997-1998, the United States ranked 15th in preventable deaths out of 19 industrialized countries. In 2002-2003, the nation fell to 19th, even as costs continued to rise. Up to 100,000 lives could be saved if the country's health-care system performed as well those in nations such as France, Japan and Australia, according to the Commonwealth Fund study, which was based on World Health Organization statistics."

    http://tinyurl.com/lagqgh

    so Accurate talks about DMV-like waiting lines

    … while apparently finding it okay that others will die because they cannot even be in a waiting line…they just die without ever getting into a waiting line. What do you think they would prefer – to die or to be in a waiting line and live?

    this is really a dumb concept..but you'd never think so listening to the folks who blithely talk about waiting lines – as if even the folks who do have insurance – do not wait.

    What a Joke. Who – who is reading here – has not waited for healthcare?

    and if that is not bad enough – read this:

    " In terms of spending, the United States devotes about 16 percent of the total economy to health care, more than seven percentage points higher than the average of OECD countries. The average American consumed $7,290 worth of medical services in 2007, compared with an average of just under $3,000 in the remaining nations when adjusted for price differences, Pearson said."

    http://tinyurl.com/y97co5m

    then we have this:

    " But the CBO agrees with the Obama administration on the main reason for increasing deficits: the projected soaring costs for entitlements, including Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. "In the future, projected growth in entitlement spending explains almost all of the projected growth in total non-interest spending — and the two big government health-care programs largely drive that increase," according to the CBO. "Medicare and Medicaid are responsible for 80 percent of the growth in spending on the three largest entitlements over the next 25 years and for 90 percent of that growth by 2080.""

    http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/08/25/soaring-health-care-costs-dominate-projected-deficit-increases/

    so health care costs threaten the economic well being of this country – and virtually everyone in it who is not wealthy.

    Mean income dropped over the last 10 years not because we did not have productivity but because our health care costs sucked up every dime of productivity.

    We have both a moral and an economic imperative that we must deal with

    And let's be clear – all of the industrialized nations in the world are dealing with the same cost trends for healtcare. None of them are immune.

    they have the same monkey on their back – but the difference is that they are dealing with it and we are not.

    All the industrialized nations spend 1/2 what we do on healthcare and all of them have better mortality rates than we do even though we spend twice as much money on healthcare.

    Now.. in my mind.. anyone with half a functioning brain can see that we need to reform our system.

    and those that say we cannot deal with it until we do "something" about "illegals" are bottom feeders IMHO. It's not only non-responsive to the bigger, more important issue but it's downright immoral.

    Our ERs will never be run in this manner.

    No national or state candidate will get elected by espousing this barbaric philosophy.

  9. Larry G Avatar

    Just FYI – the "waiting line" issue is largely bogus – again the ruminations of those with weak minds unwilling to get themselves properly educated:

    http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/Performance-Snapshots/International-Comparisons/International-Comparison–Access—Timeliness.aspx

    I think that's the thing that impresses me most in the worst kind of way about this "debate" – the amount of disinformation being spread – apparently on purpose – and for what reason?

    I see this as essentially Swiftboating the HealthCare issue but understanding the motives of the folks behind it is a real head scratcher.

    We cannot even have an informed debate until we can agree on the basic facts – right?

  10. James A. Bacon Avatar
    James A. Bacon

    Larry, regarding the international comparisons of waiting time you just referred to, make sure you understand what you're comparing. It's primary care — not specialty care. The criticism of foreign systems focuses on access to specialty diagnostics and procedures, not to primary care. Therefore, your this data has little bearing on the U.S. debate.

    It is widely recognized on both sides of the debate that America needs a better system of primary care. That raises an interesting question — why is there a problem in the first place?

    One reason, of course, is that Americans are unable to purchase low-cost policies due to state-level mandates.

    Another big reason: Not enough primary care physicians. Now, what would that be the case? Why is there a mismatch between supply and demand? Government controls the supply of new doctors (medical schools), and it largely controls the rate of reimbursement for doctors (Medicare and Medicaid). It's getting harder and harder for Medicare patients to find a doctor because many doctors are refusing to treat them — Medicare doesn't pay enough.

    When you look carefully, you'll usually find that some government regulation or incentive is at the root of any given health care dysfunction.

  11. Larry G Avatar

    Jim – you make a valid point.

    from the link:

    " the United States ranked last on four measures of continuity of care and access problems reported by patients. The U.S. patients reported relatively longer waiting times for doctor appointments when they were sick, but relatively shorter waiting times to be seen at the emergency department, see a specialist, and have elective surgery."

    but the more germane point is that we have people dying because they can not get basic care.

    Now you're blaming that on our Govt when all the other industrialized countries that beat us on this metric – are what – government run.

    see I do not understand how we process this in the convoluted way that we seem to.

    If it is the govt's fault then why are we dead last when compared against other govt-run systems?

  12. Larry G Avatar

    not sure to put this but I'm sure Jim B will want to comment on it perhaps with a new entry:

    " Report: Gulf States in Secret Talks to Drop Dollar"

    " The demise of the dollar
    In a graphic illustration of the new world order, Arab states have launched secret moves with China, Russia and France to stop using the US currency for oil trading"

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,560742,00.html?test=latestnews

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/the-demise-of-the-dollar-1798175.html

    gezsusHkeerist – does this mean that EMR was right all along?

  13. Gooze Views Avatar
    Gooze Views

    Jim and Larry,
    There are a few points that need to be made:
    (1) One of the reason there is a shortage of U.S. doctors in primary care is that specialties are more glamorous and certainly better paying. Young docs face enormous debt once out of med school. There are ways to pay for it — i.e. military or other government service. But they can recoup their expenses faster at a specialty even if that specialty takes four or five years or more training. Also, it is hard for poor rural areas or inner cities to recruit docs of any kind since they and their spouses tend to want to live in places with more cultural and entertainment activities. SO, they'd probably pick Charlottesville over Richlands if they could.
    (2) The payment problems of Medicaid and Medicare remain and that's why some docs choose not to accept them. These issues hurt doctors of all types — primary or specialty. IN fact, the WSJ had a fascinating story a year or so ago that if you are so inclined, you should become an orthodontist rather than a physician. They can easily pull in $400K a year and have normal hours.
    (3) Jim, there is plenty of evidence that foreign countries have a better system than we do for EITHER primary or specialty. You are making a one-size-fits -all argument that doesn't work. Suggest you look at T.R. Reid's new book. He doesn't support the old chestnut that non-Americans in other countries can get a doc easily for the common cold but have to wait months or years for surgery.
    (4) Too many of the arguments on this blog do not at all address what insurance companies are doing. The point of my post, which just about everyone misses or ignores, is that powerful, for-profit health insurance companies are controlling this debate for their own, one-sided purposes. You have one company controlling the consulting firm whose data politicians use and then you find those same politicians and their PACs are getting campaign funding from them. Jim, why don't you address that?
    (5) As far as Tri-Care goes, I have my own experience. My late Dad was a career Naval officer and now my Mom, 89, benefits enormously from both Tri-Care and Medicare. I know because she is in a dementia unit and I manage all of her affairs. Is Tri-Care wrong? Here's my Dad's argument. He was a doctor and spent years in the Navy not accepting very lucrative offers to resign and go into private practice. He did so because he had a strong sense of patriotism and public service. But the deal was, the government would provide lifetime health coverage if he stayed in 20 years. He actually retired after 27 years. That's the quid pro quo. Now if the government no longer wants to make that deal, so be it. But they did.

    Peter Galuszka

  14. James A. Bacon Avatar
    James A. Bacon

    Peter, of course the insurance companies spend multimillions on lobbying, PACs and self-serving public policy research. That's what *every* player in the health care industry does, including doctors, nurses, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, etc. That's what our country has come to: using government to shape the playing field in pursuite of profit and competitive advantage.

    Of course it sucks. That's one of the reasons our health care system is so dysfunctional. There is no such thing as a "free" market. All markets are politically mediated.

    Pointing out Cantor's connections to the big insurance companies is fair game. People should know who he's beholden to. But they should know who *every* congressman is beholden to. They're all in hock to somebody. If not the insurance companies, then the trial lawyers.

  15. Larry G Avatar

    peter – I accept the special interests involvement as typical par for the course – a given – and in this day and time – very sophisticated about how they involve themselves in the public debate but in cleverly disguised forms not recognized by many.

    but I can't get past the concept that the US Govt would be a disaster if it attempted to operate a public-option plan when we currently spend twice as much per capita and rank last in mortality rates as compared to every other public option system (run by govts) in the world?

    how can that be?

    If we accept the logic – OUR govt-run system will not only be worse than our current pvt system – but worse than all the rest of the govt-run systems in the world.

    it's this kind of logic that leaves me scratching my head.

    This is sorta like the folks who say the govt should stay out of the banking markets – as long as they continue to run the FDIC…

    or the govt should not provide subsidized insurance except when it's flood insurance for folks who own 2nd and 3rd homes at the beach.

  16. Larry G Avatar

    we have a dysfunctional health care system due to the nefarious influence of special interests?

    The heck you say.

    say it's not true…

    what a disappointment ….

    well .. no s_it sherlock…

    okay.. so I think I get it now

    we have a dysfunctional system because its the American free enterprise system is the best in the world – by definition?

    okay.. I'm going to get something for that head itch.. I'm going to go bald if I keep scratching it.

  17. Accurate Avatar

    Again, here is my beef against the government. Do you know what elected officials get for health care?

    “The plan most favored by federal workers is Blue Cross Blue Shield, which covers a family for about $1,030 a month. Taxpayers kick in $700 and employees pay the rest. Seeing a doctor costs $20. Generic prescriptions cost $10. Immunizations are free. There is no coverage limit.

    Federal employees also enjoy a significant benefit denied the average American: There is no such thing as a "pre-existing condition," which keeps many sick people from obtaining insurance. Once hired, federal workers are eligible for coverage no matter their health, with no waiting period.”

    “Lawmakers also get special treatment at Washington's federal medical facilities and, for a few hundred dollars a month, access to their own pharmacy and doctors, nurses and medical technicians standing by in an office conveniently located between the House and Senate chambers.”

    “This fall while members of Congress toil in the U.S. Capitol, working to decide how or even whether to reform the country's health care system, one floor below them an elaborate Navy medical clinic — described by those who have seen it as something akin to a modern community hospital — will be standing by, on-call and ready to provide Congress with some of the country's best and most efficient government-run health care.

    …Through interviews with former employees and members of Congress, as well as extensive document searches, ABC News has learned new details about the services offered by the Office of Attending Physician to members of Congress over the past few years, from regular visits by a consulting chiropractor to on-site physical therapy.

    …Services offered by the Office of the Attending Physician include physicals and routine examinations, on-site X-rays and lab work, physical therapy and referrals to medical specialists from military hospitals and private medical practices. According to congressional budget records, the office is staffed by at least four Navy doctors as well as at least a dozen medical and X-ray technicians, nurses and a pharmacist.

    Sources said when specialists are needed, they are brought to the Capitol, often at no charge to members of Congress.

    …Members of Congress do not pay for the individual services they receive at the OAP, nor do they submit claims through their federal employee health insurance policies. Instead, members pay a flat, annual fee of $503 for all the care they receive. The rest of the cost of their care, sources said, is subsidized by taxpayers.

    Oh by the way, that annual fee of $503 hasn’t changed since 1992.

    Here is a link to the story.
    http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/OnCall/congress-health-care-clinic/Story?id=8706655&page=1

    As for lines and problems with health care in the socialist medicine countries –

    Try this link on for size.

    Yes, we need to reform some of our heath care, but NOT the way Obama and the democrats want to do it.

  18. Accurate Avatar

    Larry –
    It feels a lot like Animal Farm. All animals are created equal, but some (the politicians) are more equal. Funny, the public option that they want us to swallow doesn't look anything like the plan that they have for themselves.

    I'll be very honest and say I don't have a solution to the problems. While I think that pre-existing conditions should be covered, I also realize how expensive that would be without requiring EVERYONE to have health insurance. I've also been in the position where I know that no matter what, I could not have afforded health insurance (heck, put me in jail, at least I'd get my health taken care of there).

    My own experience is that government typically makes bad situations worse, not better. When I look at the various bills going around, it just backs up my assertion. So much pork in this 'health care' bill and so many loopholes that it's disgusting. No, I don't want to waste more taxpayer money in such a program (meaning we have so many other taxpayer programs that we are already wasting money on).

    I had pointed out in a previous post in another discussion what Jim Bacon pointed out; state mandated nonsense just complicates matters that much more. I just got done going through a period of unemployment and went without health insurance and some medications that I needed for approximately 5 months. It wasn't pleasant, there should have been a way to get around it – there was, there were free clinics I could have gone to if I had hurt REAL bad; thankfully I didn't. By the same token, what damage did I do to my system when I was without my high blood pressure meds? Time will tell – but to be honest, I'd rather lay down and die than have the government take over my health care – THAT is how incompetent I feel our government is.

    Again, when the pigs in animal farm (the politicians) are ready to accept the exact same health care that they are trying to shove down our throats – then and only then will I consider the government plan and being viable (to some degree).

  19. Larry G Avatar

    Accurate – if you were going to oppose any bill on the premise that until Congress starts getting preferential treatment – no bills could ever pass.

    so why do you make that the condition that must be satisfied for health care?

    it makes no sense.

    You also conflate – Congress, it's perks, it's health care, the government health care Plan , illegals and Obama all together into one giant complaint that unless all the pieces of it are satisfied to your satisfaction that nothing else can happen.

    Obama did not create the Federal Health Care plan and Obama cannot pull Congress perks.

    He can't even impose his own plan.

    All he can do is push for something that will pass both houses that he can also agree to.

    as to your attitude about Govt, I actually share it – but it is clear that the pvt industry is not going to address this.

    and that leaves govt.

    and I still don't understand have 16 other govt plans in other countries cost 1/2 of what our pvt plans cost and we rank near the bottom on morbidity and life expectancy.

    are you saying that the other govt plans "work" but you have no confidence in OUR govt plans?

    Do you trust our govt to do Homeland Security, Nuclear regulation, nukes power plants in warships, FDIC, CDC, NASA, etc, etc,.

    I could go on and on. Are you saying that NONE of these govt functions are of any use and the govt should get out of them?

    If you don't believe this – then where do you draw the line between what you have confidence that the govt can do and not do?

    and do you think that any of these govt agencies that I named (and more) operate much differently under the Obama administration than previous ones?

    I just don't understand this widespread mistrust of this particular President.

    It just seems to me to be a steady drumbeat – you name the subject – and it's this Presidents fault…

  20. Accurate Avatar

    Larry –
    Whats good for the goose is good for the gander, and by golly the government is trying it's best to goose us.

    Once upon a time, we were suppose to be a representative government, meaning not only where the politicians suppose to represent us, but be representative of who we are. Money and laws have taken that away from us (IMO) so that now we pretty much only have lawyers in there who are representative of … lawyers, oh and of all the monied special interest groups (want to talk about term limits here?).

    About the only thing (IMO) that the government does a pretty good job of is the military, and even there they occasionally hose it. Some of the other areas that you mentioned were not originally programs/areas that private industry had first. The government came in and ran things, screw ups and all. Hey, I'm in Houston, I love NASA, didn't care much for the over-priced toilet seats (or the expensive hammers bought for the military).

    You ask why I make that the one condition for me to support health care? Simple, if they had to deal with the costs and the lines, wanna bet they would do something about it? Since they are above it all, they don't really have an interest in how it's working or how much it costs. Heck, wanna really make things work, make them pay for it out of thier own pockets. You start to really look carefully when it's YOUR money that is being spent instead of someone elses.

    Do I blame this president? I've already made it known that I loath the man, nothing has come along to change my mind. However, I'm very mindful of just how hated and despised Bush was during his terms. I believe that Bush really wanted good for this country just as you believe that Obama wants good for this county.

    Bottom line, to me, the plans floating around congress are horrible. I don't wish to bail on what we have only to dive into something worse. If Obama wants to get rid of private health care (which the congress bills would eventually accomplish) then the congressional health plan should also be abolished. Yes, I lump congress, congressional perks, Obama, illegals, etc all into one, because they are all parts of the same puzzle, or some would say, same mess.

    Do I, do we (you and me) like the plans in the other countries? I wouldn't want to have the plan that they have in England, where they sometimes have to wait for a bed in ICU (see my link to the youtube video). I wouldn't want to be covered under the 'universal health care' that they have in Mexico … well, maybe I would if I were a government worker, because the plan they get is soooo much better than the one that the rest of the country gets (plus if you can afford it, there is private care and insurance which is MUCH better than either government plan). As for the statistics showing we are near the bottom in mortality and life expectancy, have you seen how the statistics were derived? Have you seen how all the countries don't use the same criteria when reporting the data?

    Here is one link discussing how the data is skewed:
    http://www.rangelmd.com/index.php/2007/08/25/the-misleading-who-health-care-rankings/

    In another case did you know that the USA reports stillborn births as infant mortality; in other countries stillborns are not counted as infant mortality – do you think that might throw off the results?

    Again, do we need some kind of reform? You bet – do we need the kind of reform that is being bantered about Washington DC? Please no. The last thing we need is another pile of money that the politicians look at and start putting thier hands on (like the IOU's that presently exist in the social security system).

    Oh, I expect at any moment that Bush will be blamed for the way things are. Heck, he even got blamed (by the lefties) for us failing to get the Olympics, the man was/is amazing.

  21. Larry G Avatar

    Accurate – do you REALLY think that someone who makes the claim – that our health in this country is different from other countries without showing any data what-so-ever is credible?

    has he shown the actually differences in the rates?

    no…. so… why would you believe him over the credible links that I have provided to you?

    this guy talks about WHO.

    here are the orgs that I provided to you:

    as far as the govt "goosing" us – is it the case that with Obama in charge they are goosing us but with Bush in charge they were not?

    And while we're on the subject.
    Bush had an almost 70% approval rate in his first term.

    People did not turn against him because he had bad breath.

    He lied. He subverted our Constitution. He questioned the patriotism of those who disagreed with his wars and his torture policies. He had people kidnapped, held in secret, without charges. Should I go on?

    He was not an 8month President with people lining up against him for no reason other than the fact that they disliked who he was and not what he did?

    Obama might well turn out to be the biggest disaster since Jimmy Carter but you and I not going to know that for another 3 years are we?

    so "loathing" someone he has been in office for 8 months and loving the guy who was in office for 8 years and went from 70% to 20% approval .. strikes me as …well.. biased.

    Have you thought about why you think the military does a good job and the rest of the govt does not?

    We can make Humvees just fine but we can't keep mad cow disease out of our hamburger?

    and you would trust the meat packing industry instead?

    fess up Accurate … who do you want in charge of the safety of our food, water, drugs?

    there is LOTs to dislike about the way that govt works but the we already know how things work when the private sector is in charge – don't we?

    Do I think the health care in other countries is superior to ours?

    I don't think it is worse in most areas and clearly is better in other areas.

    they do what we will not do.

    they have longer wait times for elective surgery and shorter wait times for primary care.

    and they do this for 1/2 the money.

    they cover ALL their people.

    their people don't die from treatable diseases like our folks do.

    and that's right now.

    in ten years, our health care costs are projected to double and the pvt companies are predicted to dump as many more from their policies as is currently uninsured.

    youtube videos are anecdotal evidence at best Accurate.

    why would you believe such stuff in the first place?

    would you believe youtube videos posted by Americans claiming that we have terrible healthcare?

    why would you believe the videos about foreign healthcare but not the ones about our healthcare?

    is that your built-in bias at work again?

    one of the things you don't see to understand is that people in those foreign countries CAN always pay more to get more/better care and some of them do – and any universal health care plan in this country would work the same way.

    In fact, it works that way right now.

    You are always free to pay more if you want more/better – including on Medicare.

    The point of universal care is BASIC care to prevent deaths from easily treatable diseases.

    Finally.. the idea that our health care cost more because we are FATTER is laughable…

    so you're saying.. we've got skinny people who are sick with diseases that they did not cause and they cannot get health care – but the fatties can and so we let the skinny guys die so we can spend twice as much keeping the fatties alive?

    and all of this is Obama's fault and he's an idiot for trying to fix it?

  22. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    We have our own newspaper (WaPo)that is the mouth of the ruling political party – different party, but the principle is the very same. What happened to journalists who wanted to report on the news instead of help carry water for one side or the other?

    TMT

  23. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Ok, I’m going to go out on what would be a long limb without the ability to post as anon.
    I am an educated single mother of two. I was laid off a little over a year ago because my field is related to the development community. ( also in Chesterfield County, if anyone is interested) When I lost my job, I lost my insurance.
    I am trying to make the best of the situation and start my own business. EVERY single day I hope and pray that neither of my kids gets sick. The normal maternal worry is exacerbated by the insurance issue. I have looked at purchasing a policy, but at this point, I can not afford it.
    Now, just so on one is under the impression that I feel sorry for myself in any way, I must state that I do not subscribe to those schools of thought. I have never been one to ask for, or take any form of handout.
    To the point: my children and I need insurance. I can appreciate both sides of the national argument, but we need insurance.
    I have never loved Eric Cantor, and if he and his colleagues can’t put their minds together, get past the partisan bull****, and start working to benefit the people they represent, I might just be forced to run for congress, throw his but out and have the benefit of that congressional insurance.
    It’s a sad day when a single mom needs to consider a congressional campaign to be able to sleep soundly at night.

  24. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Why would Health Profession ORGS give $235M to Congress? 53% to Ds 47% to Rs.

    Why would the Healthcare Industry give $1.2B to Congress? 54% to Ds 46% to Rs.

    Why would the PHARMACEUTICAL / HEALTH PRODUCTS industry give $839M to Congress? 50.5% to Rs 49.5% Ds

    Corruption? Is corruption the end of healthcare in America? Where is the patient's interests being represented? By whom exactly?7

  25. Larry G Avatar

    well.. after razzing Accurate on the sources of his speculation about obesity rates in the US and Europe – it turns out he was correct and here's the link:

    http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/4061

    " When comparing obesity rates in Europe and the US, two basic facts emerge:
    continental Europe has much lower rates of obesity than the UK and US (Figure 1)
    while Europe is heading in the same direction as the US – higher obesity rates – it is doing so at a significantly slower pace, according to OECD data."

    but the issue is complicated – go read the link

  26. Accurate Avatar

    Larry –
    I take umbrage to your accusation that I am bias – a natural extension is that I'm racially bias. Sorry, if McCain, or Hillary or a Martian was elected as president and had proposed all the rather dumb (IMO) ideas that Obama has made, I'd be ticked off at them too. I'm against the man's policies, the man is irrelevant.

    You said "here are the orgs that I provided to you:" then you didn't provide any.

    You went into this rant about 'fatties' which I didn't talk about at all. I did talk about how the statistics for things like (in particular) infant mortality were counted differently in different countries. I found a link here it is.

    http://www.overpopulation.com/articles/2002/cuba-vs-the-united-states-on-infant-mortality/

    You poo-poo'ed my youtube link, but if you had gone to look at it you would have seen it was a John Stossel report.

    As for Bush versus Obama, if I were to compare the two I'd take Bush in a minute, but that is only because Obama is so bad. I was never head-over-heels with Bush but Obama has made mistake after mistake after mistake; IMO the man is a disaster. My complaint against him before the election was that he didn't have the experience that he needed for the position and so far he has proved me right.

    And Larry, we haven't even begun the talk about tort reform which Obama (and the dems) talk about but refuse to put in the health care bill.

    No Larry, I'm no more or less bias against Obama than you were regarding Bush. My guess is that you didn't care for Bush, for much of anything that he stood for or put up as an idea … that is where I am regarding Obama.

    Don't paint me as something I'm not. What I don't want are the 'changes' that Obama keeps proposing; mainly because he hasn't thought them through (IMO), instead, he just does a knee jerk reaction and pushes something through without looking at the total picture.

  27. Larry G Avatar

    Accurate – population.com is a BLOG, does not self-identify who they are and do not provided links to where they get their data.

    you will not inform yourself by relying on sources like this – especially when there are very credible sources:
    http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/4/36/40321504.pdf

    I was not comparing Cuba – bur rather the US to other industrialized countries that do report and the data is normalized because credible organization know that comparisons that are not normalized are not useful.

    Accurate what happened to Tort Reform during Bush's 8 years when he had a Republican majority?

    You ARE biased. You give Bush a pass for 8 years and convict Obama after 8 months.

    this is typical for the anti-Obama folks. They're not even willing to do an honest comparison.

    Accurate – like the 50% who turned against Bush – I supported him early in his Presidency especially at the 9-11 mark. I very much supported his collaborative efforts on NCLB.

    Accurate you ARE biased – but you don't even realize it apparently.

    you do silly stuff like blaming Obama for the Federal Health care program ..or Congress Perks..

    And Accurate – you prefer info from unsubstantiated sources that back up your biases without doing your homework to use authoritative sources – and more than one when the data disagrees – which is what many of the other Obama haters also do.

    Most of their links are to BLOGS – that when you look at the rest of the BLOG sounds like you do – one rant after another against Obama.

    Finally, Obama does not support kidnapping people, holding them without charges, torturing them and then telling Congress and the Supreme Court that it is outside their jurisdiction.

    Why you support someone who has not problem shredding our Constitution and telling Congress, the Supreme court, and the rest of the world including our allies to get lost over ANYONE else tells me just how biased you really are.

    You support a guy who has a 20% rating that he deserved. He didn't get it by proposing policies – he got it by actually carrying out policies that 80% of the people in this country did not support.

    and Accurate – he also had 8 years to rein in Fannie and Freddie and the speculation in housing and he did what? He did the opposite – he advocated less and less regulation and tax cuts – at the same time he did two wars and Medicare part D "off budget".

    He inherited a budget surplus and then turned over a huge deficit and a disaster of an economy to this guy – whom you apparently blame for how he delt with it – even though he delt with it the way that the same economic advisors to Bush recommended also.

    and it's clear – if you had the choice – you'd pick Bush again – right?

    tell me why you would. what policies of his do you support that would help this country right now?

  28. Accurate Avatar

    Larry –
    I'm sorry, gee would you accept something from The Public Health Agency of Canada? Here is the quote:

    "Some differences may exist in the way various countries record infant births and deaths, so that infant mortality rates are not necessarily directly comparable. However, for countries similarly developed in comparison to Canada, such differences do not negate the fact that infant mortality rate is still considered a reliable indicator of a country’s overall health and is often used as an international comparison tool."

    See, I even threw in the second sentence that tries to make up for the first sentence; and here is the link:

    http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/2008/cphorsphc-respcacsp/cphorsphc-respcacsp06c-eng.php

    As for Bush and tort reform, here is a link … if CBS news is credible enough for you.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/01/05/politics/main664838.shtml

    Larry says, "blaming Obama for the Federal Health care program ..or Congress Perks.. "

    No, I don't blame him for them, I blame him for not attempting to clean them up. He wants us to change but not those who 'rule', again, it's like Animal Farm.

    You said, "Finally, Obama does not support kidnapping people, holding them without charges, torturing them and then telling Congress and the Supreme Court that it is outside their jurisdiction."

    And you are ABSOLUTELY correct!!! To keep this country safe the President SHOULD do whatever is necessary. These folks don't have good things in mind for me or my country, do whatever you have to to keep us safe. From my military background I know that sitting, having a chat with enemy combatants will not get you the information that you need. I also know that using the Army field manual as our guide as to how to interogate will NOT get us very much information. So again, in my book, it's Bush 1, Obama 0.

    You said, "he also had 8 years to rein in Fannie and Freddie and the speculation in housing and he did what? He did the opposite -" Um, would care to stand corrected? Try these two links:
    one from your favorite publication NY Times –
    http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business/new-agency-proposed-to-oversee-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print

    the other from US News and World Report:
    http://www.usnews.com/blogs/barone/2008/10/06/democrats-were-wrong-on-fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac.html

    Larry, bottom line, I don't like ANY of the policies that Obama has proposed, which puts him in a deep hole in my book; it will take a lot to get back to level. By the same token, you seem to like pretty much everything that Obama has proposed; it's not hard to see why we don't view things the same way.

    Bush was not as bad as you like to paint him and maybe, just maybe Obama isn't as bad as his first 8 months have shown him to be. However, at this point, I'm anything BUT impressed with POTUS.

  29. Larry G Avatar

    Accurate –

    do you realize that infant mortality is one of but several mortality data that is tracked by OCED and the variations are alluded to.

    but first you bring up Cuba which is not an industrialized nation that does health care, then you bring up Canada which then references OCED data and agrees that the data is legitimate and credible but what you focus on is what?

    that there are acknowledged variations – which you then proceed to use as the first part of your conspiracy theory that none of it is reliable.

    that's the way the Glen Becks of this world work.. you know that.

    Bush and tort reform. What did he ACCOMPLISH Accurate? Talk is cheap as evidenced by your link.

    protecting the country…

    what a triple load

    SAYING that you are protecting the country by shredding the Constitution.. ignoring international law and violating the basic tenants of Habeas Corpus is NOT a reason to admire ANYONE – MUST LESS the POTUS.

    this shows just how screwed up people who think like you – are.

    it's the old Manifest Destiny, might makes right, do whatever it takes to win…

    Hitler's way of doing business, in fact strikingly similar to just about every dictator who has ever ruled on earth.

    and that's the fundamental problem with the Bush lovers. They believe that the President RULES and is not subject to the Constitution and Laws – as long as he is doing "what is right".

    Fannie/Freddie – there's that word again – Bush "proposed".

    what did he ACCOMPLISH when he is President and had BOTH houses of Congress.

    You CONVICT Obama on what he PROPOSES and you EXONERATE Bush for what he did and credit it for what he did not accomplish but merely proposed.

    and – I'll give you credit -you're not fully out of that closet.

    I do not think Obama is the best thing since slice bread in any way, shape or form – in part because he was dealt a really crummy hand.. he's arrogant… and inexperienced, makes mistakes – just exactly like BUSH did…

    We'd be in 3 wars right now if we still had that idiot and his sidekick Cheney in power and you know it.

    and he would not have done anything about the "illegals" and he would have done exactly the same thing Obama has done about the TARP/bailouts/Stimulus.

  30. Accurate Avatar

    You are correct Larry, I hammer Obama on what he proposes, because what he proposes scares me. The proposals make me scared for me, for my country and the for my children's future in this great nation.

    To help pump you up, I happen to LOVE both Beck and O'Reilly. Probably as much as you love Olbermann, Ed Schultz and NPR. I do love the fact that those extremes of opinion can exist in this great country; I am wary that Obama will seek to shut down opinions that he disagrees with.

    McCain was not a great candidate, however, the main reason Obama got elected (IMO) is not that he was the best candidate, but he was the 'other' choice. Much like it was when Carter got elected, the country had gone through Nixon, poor ole Ford was left holding the bag and the country said, "We'll vote for whoever the 'other' guy is." And we know how well that turned out, I'm expecting the same if not worse from Obama.

    Bottom line – you like Obama, I loath Obama; not a lot of common ground here. Nice talking to you.

  31. Larry G Avatar

    Accurate – I listen to FAUX News more than MSN. O'Relly more than Oberman, Hannity, and Greta.

    I'm stopped listing to Beck – I think he really does have a mental issue of some kind and Limbaugh is not far behind.

    But here' my take.

    If these guys are YOUR Leaders – you're in trouble.

    McCain is as close as your're going to get…

    No Brownbacks, No Palins, No Fred Thompsons nor anyone like them who pretty much hew to the Beck/Hannity/Limbaugh school of thought.

    The only chance that you have is to convince the folks in the middle to vote – primarily by trying to scare the bejusus out of them and unfortunately this group is the most likely to be influence by the sound-bite rhetoric that FAUX specializes in.

    I especially love O'Reilly though – one night he's hard over in a love fest with Beck or Rove and the next night he's asking his quests if he is REALLY fair and balanced…and when they tell him he's not – he's get a case of the grue.

    Obama scares you?

    I think myself and the other 80% of my fellow citizens were scared of what Bush/Cheney would do – next.

    To them – lying is a virtue and you get extra points if you're good at it.

    Those guys are criminals IMHO.

    I think Mafia Thugs have more scruples than them.

    now.. if you press me.. I'll tell you how I really feel.

    😉

  32. Larry G Avatar

    so Accurate – do we agree that the health care debate is not really about health care but rather about Obama for folks like you?

  33. Accurate Avatar

    No Larry – it's about what a crappy plan the democrats are trying to shove down our throats. It's about the hidden costs, the lies and the power grab of the democrats. Odd, I don't think you look at it from that same point of view.

  34. Larry G Avatar

    Accurate:

    Here's the truth about Infant Mortality Rates – from the Bush Administration:

    " Infant Mortality Rates. The United States has the third-highest infant mortality rate in the OECD, after Turkey and Mexico, as shown in Figure 26. However, this statistic is likely somewhat overstated because of differences in
    methodology. The United States is one of eight countries that counts very premature babies with low chances of survival as “live births,” which has the effect of increasing infant mortality rates over what they otherwise would be. Nevertheless, among the eight countries that report live births using the same methodology, the United States has the highest rate of infant mortality. Even with more consistent methodology, the U.S. ranking — which has been slipping over time — would
    probably not significantly improve."

    http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34175_20070917.pdf page 57

    Read the rest of the report from the Congressional Research Service – using OECD data.

    Now – IMHO – Accurate, you initially provided dishonest info from a disreputable source – then even when you found a more reputable source – you continued to debate on that one point – about different methodologies which you do – did not significantly affect the wider meaning of the stats – as stated in both the Canadian and the US Report.

    And that was just for infant mortality. There are many others also – that we do not score well in and the wider, more important point here is that, in fact, we pay twice as much for health care and our outcomes are worse overall.. These are facts – backed up and replicated by more than one credible source.

    and to me.. this exemplifies the wider debate that is going on…

    I call it swiftboating..when data and information is purposely misrepresented with no real attempts to correct it and the motive is to continue to spread wrong information and this goes back to the way that Bush did business

    and it's this if you think you are right – "win at any cost".

    Lying is valid when the facts don't support you.

    spreading those lies is how you win the folks in the middle

    Unfortunately for this country – the people in the middle decide most controversial issues and most of them are in the middle in the first place because they are truly unsure, a bit lazy about finding facts and they usually eminently persuadable if erroneous claims are simply repeated enough times on paid commercials and right wing talk shows.

    there is no attempt at an honest debate.

    whether we're talking about death panels, pulling the plug on grandma, health outcomes, etc… the strategy de jure is to swiftboat first and ask questions later.

    I'm going to finish by repeating – to make sure you do understand.

    Obama is no favorite of mine. He IS inexperienced and he IS making mistakes and he appears to me to be arrogant at times but he is the President and will be so for 3 more years and he is attempting to do something about health care that the Republicans basically ignored for 16 years – and NOW want to lie about it.

    The lady that wrote in earlier – she has two kids and lost her job and now does not have health care.

    that is what this is about and as far as I am concerned – the folks who don't want to deal with this problem – and have spent 16 years before now – not dealing with it – they have no street cred.

    the only thing that will convince me otherwise is when I see them – as a group – as a party – put forth their own comprehensive alternate and stop using swiftboat tactics to attempt to derail other efforts.

    there was a time – when fiscally conservative Republicans – would have addressed this issue – and put up a legitimate alternate approach but no more.. the Republican Party these days requires one to kiss Limbaughs butt or else and ya'll should be ashamed of your party.

    that's my story – and I'm sticking to it.

  35. Accurate Avatar

    Larry –
    You say that Obama isn't your favorite, yet over and over again on this blog you carry the water for him and the dems. Say what you want, just look at your own history here.

    My point regarding the recording of the infant mortality rate is that similar discrepancies exist when reporting other data. Hey, our health care system isn't the best, but I'd take it over Canada, Great Britain, Spain or any South American country (funny, you never commented about Mexico's fine universal health care system). I had read the article regarding it a couple months ago and had trouble finding something to substantiate the finding – mea cupa (but it was finally found to your satisfaction – sort of).

    You are as guilty as me in the area of cherry picking studies and facts. You carry the water for the dems and so you cite studies that show that side of the coin; so be it.

    You accuse the republicans of ignoring health care for 16 years. Funny, I thought the democrats had the presidency and a majority of congress from 92 – 95. The Republicans controlled congress up till 2006 when the democrats took it over again – so quit spinning the facts. Besides, ever since Teddy Roosevelt the politicians have talked about health care.

    I agree, the woman who is without health insurance should have access to some. If you remember a prior posting of mine (in this thread) I too just got done going through a time of having no health insurance. However, the plan that the democrats are putting forth is basically a horrible plan. If the democrats want to give us the same plan that the congress has, bring it on but I won't be holding my breath.

    If Obama continues making stupid mistake after stupid mistake, it won't be hard to change the make up of the congress come 2010. I didn't like Obama's stand on things (when you could get him to commit) when he was running for office. And I haven't cared for anything that he has proposed or the legislation that was rushed through congress since he was elected. Yes, he's in office for 3 more long and painful years, doesn't mean I'm going to sit here and lose my country without a fight.

    Let the man propose something reasonable and (believe it or not) I'll get behind him. Let him continue to propose garbage like cap-and-tax, his immigration policy and this health care fiasco and I'll do my very best to make my voice heard in opposing him.

    Have a terrific day.

    BTW – I don't listen to Rush and rarely listen to Hannity. If I make the mistake of getting Ed Schultz or NPB on my radio I end up yelling at it after less than 2 minutes.

  36. Larry G Avatar

    Accurate – the Dems did indeed have the con the 8 years prior to Bush and they did try to do health care – and guess who stopped it?

    Then they had the next 8 years to do something different from the hated Hillary Care – right?

    So did they not spend 16 years doing virtually nothing other than oppose Hilliary care, spend the next 8 years doing nothing, then start into the next 4 hears opposing Obamacare?

    what is it about the above that is not the truth?

    They inherited a budget surplus 8 years later turned over a disastrous deficit and an economy in such crisis that even the BUSH advisors wanted the Tarp/Stimulus.

    this is Spin?

    Obama did pretty much what Bush was attempting to do with the Tarp/Stimulus and folks like you say this is an Obama policy?

    what planet are you on dude?

    I don't carry water for Obama nor the Dems.. I'm more blue dog or a socially liberal conservative with a libertarian tilt.

    I am definitely not a tax & spend guy.

    If I had my way – every dang tax scam that is in the tax code would disappear tomorrow.

    Bush went from 70% approval to 80% opposition for a reason.

    I suppose in your view – he was "misunderstood".

    No. he was stupid and arrogant and deserved to be rejected by 80%.

    How you think that the 8 years under Bush is better than 8 months under Obama is beyond belief.

    I don't have to carry water for Obama – to point out just how ridiculous it is to judge a president with 8 months under his belt – AT THE SAME TIME – you put yourself in the 20% who admire Bush.

    and on the healtcare –

    even the healthcare of the folks who have insurance in this country is inferior to most other industrialized countries who have govt-run systems.

    that's not a lie. it's a fact – backed up by honest statistics from objective sources including our own govt.

    for folks who don't have insurance in this country – they are even worse off.

    how can you OPPOSE plans to fix this but at the same time you say you don't have any idea of how to fix it?

    Isn't this why your guys got thrown out of office?

    are you not admitting that you have no positive agenda to fix things but instead you will just oppose – and you'll do it by joining with those who are actively misrepresenting the facts and spreading disinformation?

    what kind of approach is that Accurate?

    I'd say – you're entitled to CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM.

    Put YOUR plan on the table that fixes the things you don't like about the proposals you don't like.

    I have absolutely no problem with going the way that Europe has – and tweaking it to deal with some of the things we don't like about it.

    but to advocate for nothing while you opposing at the same time is not a pretty picture.

  37. Accurate Avatar

    I'm not sure when you're going to let this discussion die Larry, I've come to a couple places where I thought it had come to a logical stopping spot – I know, you just have to have the last word. OK, go ahead a reply to this and I won't reply to you (no matter how nasty your reply is – promise).

    Do I have a plan, no, but that is because I'm neither a politician nor am I a medical person. If I were either, I'd have some ideas (I hope, I think). I do know the nonsense that the dems have been touting is full of holes and will cost us up the rear end for quite some time in the future (when it will only get worse).

    The true party of "NO" has been the democrats as no matter what has been suggested by the republicans the dems just say "NO" to it because they can. The dems have no intention of making health care a bi-partisan idea/project. So, the real party of "NO" is the dems, period.

    Still don't understand your math, the way I see it is the dems had congress for the first two years of Clinton and the last two years of Bush. How you are doing your math is a mystery to me – but whatever. I hold the dems responsible, you hold the republicans responsible, in the end we still don't have a health care bill that is any good – even unto now.

    You would gladly take some other country's health care plan. Good for you, I wouldn't, 'nuff said. I would much rather be treated in the USA too, if I came down with some condition that allowed me to go from a foreign country to the US. Personal preference I guess, also perception.

    Obama is a light weight with a huge ego and not much to back it up. His perceived popularity isn't what he thinks it is. I dislike a president who spends his time apologizing for the country that he was elected to run. He has bad ideas, he has bad advisors and over all has been a bad president (so far).

    So there ya go Larry. Hammer away, let's hear some more comments about how bad Bush was. I promise, I will NOT respond and we can move on to one of the other postings.

    Take care.

  38. Larry G Avatar

    I'm going to disappoint you Accurate.

    You DID get the last word.

  39. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "The true party of "NO" has been the democrats as no matter what has been suggested by the republicans the dems just say "NO" to it because they can. The dems have no intention of making health care a bi-partisan idea/project."

    Oh give me a break.

    How do you "make" something bipartisan when the other side won't put anything on the table?

    You cannot force them to participate, and going ahead without them is not the same thing.

    Where is the Republican who has stood up and said the public option would be an option under the following circumstances….?

    Nowhere, all they say (in perfect unison and even nusing the same catch phrases) is that the public option is not an option.

    Where is the Republican who says, no public option, but we can agree to the following plan, with a trigger to set off the public option if our plan fails…..?

    Nowhere.

    How are the Dems supoosed to negotiate when the starting position is that nothing is on the table?

    RH

  40. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I just came back from Dallas. It was interesting to hear the discussion of health care reform at trade association of small tech companies (all of which offer an HMO purchased through the association's master contract). There was virtual unanimity in opposition to any public option.

    Speakers felt that the ability to cut health care costs by dumping their plans any paying an other payroll tax would soon create a snowball effect that would create pressure more more companies to do the same.

    There was also very strong criticism of the idea of creating another federal entitlement program when medicare and social security were on the ropes.

    TMT

  41. Larry G Avatar

    what I don't understand when I hear reports like this – is this:

    " What they do like is the public option, by a very healthy 61% to 34% margin."

    " Overall, 61 percent of Americans back the “public option.”

    http://washingtonindependent.com/62968/poll-republicans-fall-to-25-percent-approval-most-americans-back-public-option

    with regard to Medicare's impending bankruptcy.

    we're dealing with an Alice-in-Wonderland world..

    Medicare's issues are the exact same issues that pvt insurances has and it is this – in about a decade BOTH of them WILL GO BROKE…

    … and this is the important part :

    If NOTHING IS DONE.

    We already know what the pvt companies are going to do.

    the premiums will double – and they will dump more people – doubling the number of people who no longer have insurance.

    so .. we're getting massive amounts of misinformation on this issue – and I call the efforts of some – nothing more than plain old swiftboating.

    We can't even debate it on the merits – because of the sheer level of misinformation being promoted.

    61% in favor of a public option is NOT massive opposition by any stretch of the imagination.

    the massive opposition is coming from SOME sources – mainly Republican but they are in the bigger scheme – less than 40% …

    but what gets reported is the "massive opposition".

    so I ask – what is the truth?

    then we have the total double standard of saying that Medicare is going broke and that proves that the plan is a failure while not using that same standard with pvt healthcare.

    why?

    finally – anyone who is on Medicare right now or anyone whose parents are on Medicare – tell me what you would do if your parents had no health insurance – and could not get it – which is likely?

    what would you do?

    when I ask this question of those who opposed the public option for others but support it for seniors and then turn right around and talk about the failure of Medicare – what does this mean?

    we are – as a society – totally incoherent and schizoid on the health care issue.

    The same folks opposed to the public option which is the same folks who say Medicare is a failure – are the same folks who are thankful that they and their parents have Medicare.

    why isn't this the height of hypocrisy?

  42. Larry G Avatar

    the solutions to Medicare going broke are these:

    1. – pushing the eligibility age to 67 or later.

    2. – more and higher co-pays for elective surgeries.

    3. – longer wait times for elective surgeries

    4. – more means testing and more granular means testing.

    5. – outright denial of some procedures and therapies that do not have sound data that support the efficacy .

    Now before people start talking about the horrible aspect of cutting old people's benefits, consider this:

    the pvt companies – in order for them to not go bankrupt are going to do exactly the same types of things with one important addition – they will dump people who are too expensive.

    and let's finish with this.

    you do not have to use Medicare for yourself or your parents if you are philosophically opposed to the concept.

    You can always take back what you put into it and then pay cash and go to doctors/facilities that do not accept Medicare as we know that more than a few folks already do.

    You are free, for instance, to go to India and have a hip transplant for 1/4 what it would cost in this country.

    but what does it say about you – if you are opposed philosophically to the concept of Medicare and the Public Option but you still will take the benefits?

    so ..the folks who are opposed in principal – will still take the benefits for themselves – while they actively opposed the same exact benefits for others?

    what do we call this?

    I have a name for it but I can't print it here…

  43. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Larry,

    I think that you are over-simplifying on Medicare. One need not refuse to participate in it or take one's parents out of it (as if that can easily happen) to take the position that it is in serious financial straights. It is.

    Moreover, what federal program — defense, infrastructure construction, health care, etc., ever costs anywhere near what is projected? Most federal programs are financial disasters. Not just because of mismanagement, but often because members of congress add spending or steer spending.

    We simply cannot afford to create another big entitlement.

    I'm not arguing to protect insurance companies, doctors, pharma, etc. There are problems and abuses. Fix them. But they can be fixed. If, for example, a drug company is willing to sell X overseas of $10, it should be forced to sell it here for the same price.

    Bu we don't need another uncontrollable federal spending program.

    TMT

  44. Larry G Avatar

    TMT – here's some reading material for you:

    Facts on Medicare and the affect of the reform legislation on it:

    http://www.medicarerights.org/pdf/Fact-Sheet-Health-Reform-and-Medicare.pdf

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/

    TMT – would you call the NTSB or the FDIC a "financial disaster"?

    How about the nuclear regulatory commission or the Coast Guard or the CDC?

    If you really believe that govt agencies and Medicare are financial disasters – should you not support the abolition of those that are?

    I have zero problems getting rid of the home mortgage deduction, subsidized flood insurance, ethanol subsidies, etc…

    I have no problems keeping programs like the NTSB, CDC, FDIC, etc…

    so why not you?

    if you think MEDICARE is a failure then should you not truly – advocate it's dissolution?

    I think you need to stand for your principles – not straddle the fence.

    go to that expectmore.gov page and you'll find govt programs that are slated for dissolution – and you'll also find one's that are not.

    to me – what you are advocating is two classes of people.

    those who are lucky enough to be beneficiaries of these 'financial disasters" – and those that are not without any rational criteria other than we already have "too much".

    why not evaluate the performance of those agencies like ExpectMore.gov does and whack off the ones that don't perform and it Medicare does not perform – get rid of it?

  45. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Larry,
    Sometimes, it's necessary to deal with an existing mess. It would not be feasible simply to dismantle Medicare now. Too many people are dependent on it, but that doesn't make the program fiscally viable. Costs are rising faster than the ability to pay for them, especially when one considers all of the other demands for limited funds – public and private.
    Many people believe that the Iraq war is either a big disaster or at least less than successful. Obama is one of them. Yet, he hasn't simply pulled the plug. He's trying to manage the situation and bring it to a better conclusion (at least in his view).. (This post is not about foreign policy. I’m just using an analogy.) But what he hasn't done is start another war in Iran. (Remember Candidate Obama talked about bombing Iran.) There may be good reasons to do so. Or at least more good reasons than there were (at least in hindsight) in Iraq. However, I suspect that the problems of Afghanistan and Iraq are key reasons why the President has not taken stronger action in Iran. (Again, I'm not here to debate foreign policy, only to use it as an illustration.)
    Why doesn't the same principles apply to health care reform? We have major financial and political problems with Medicare. Those truly need to be addressed or at least managed, rather than simply eliminate the program for ideological reasons. But, with what we’ve seen with Medicare, it makes no sense to me whatsoever to create another Medicare-like problem by creating a public option than it would to create another Iraq-like problem in Iran.
    There are problems with heath care in the U.S. Some stem from the insurance industry, pharma, medical device manufacturers, etc. Others stem from people's behavior — obesity, smoking, drugs, etc. Others stem from illegal immigration and unscrupulous employers. Our litigious society causes some of the problems and the clowns in Congress are also high on the list.
    I expect Congress and Obama will continue to try to address some of these problems and that some of those solutions will involve more government regulation. But when we know that we cannot sustain existing entitlement programs and that there will be a financial incentive for businesses to dump their existing health plans on Uncle Sam, it strikes me as being very irresponsible for Congress to adopt a solution that does this. We could easily put even more people’s health care security at risk.
    Programs like the FDIC and NTSB are not similar to huge entitlement programs. They are much smaller. Dealing with entitlements is critical to the success of the U.S. economy. The NTSB’s existence is not.
    TMT

  46. Larry G Avatar

    thank you TMT.

    that's a better explanation than the Eric Cantors in this debate.

    we don't agree in the whole but do on some…

    the entitlement programs are going to sink us if we don't deal with them but pvt health care is going to kill our economy also if we continue on this same path.

    We don't have the option of doing nothing and continuing as he have before but I'll acknowledge that we've done just that for the last 16 years.

    I don't think what the other industrialized countries has done is a failure and I think it is where we have to go on some level.

    I note how the TRICARE program for or military works.

    It's a single payer plan that has been delegated to private companies but the govt plays a big role in it.

    It is not unlike some of the European approaches.

    At any rate – my view is that we have no choice but to do the reforms on BOTH the Medicare side and the pvt side because if we don't – one or both will still sink us.

    It's pretty scary – given the track record of our govt in dealing with these kinds of issues – I admit it -but I don't see any alternative except the status quo – and that will kill us also because the status quo is a false choice.

    this is no status quo.

    in 10 years, without changes, MEDICARE will be bankrupt – and pvt healthcare will cost twice as much and we'll end up with twice as many without insurance also.

    We're going to end on the other side with MEDICARE deferred to 67 or 70 and elective surgeries with much higher co-pays and serious restrictions on drugs and therapies that are not shown to have efficacy.

    It's the growth in the costs that is killing us.

    and that growth is fueled by expensive elective procedures and therapies that MEDICARE will not be able to pay the full costs of.

    More and more retired with the means are going to have to obtain Medicare Advantage GAP plans instead of having beach houses…. or 50K trophy cars.

  47. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Larry, we may be closer in opinion than either of us think.

    I'm not defending the status quo, but I don't think a politically acceptable solution can diminish what many people have or like about their current coverage or drastically increase their payments. Having 50% of the citizenry think that they lost so that some other people get coverage just will not sell. I don't think people are benevolent when their own health insurance is at risk. Selfish? Maybe, but realistic.

    I think that a big political problem will be forcing young people to buy insurance so that there are more funds for others. Many of these people are already struggling and resentful about Social Security. If my name were Obama, I shoot only for a requirement to purchase catastrophic coverage for this group,

    I've been told that digitizing medical records, along with expansion of broadband access, can truly reduce health care costs. I've been told this would permit many more people to avoid or reduce hospital stays in favor of care by visiting health care professionals. The house call makes a comeback at less cost.

    I also think that, by and large, pharma and device manufacturers should be required to sell their products in the U.S. at the same prices that they sell them overseas (with the possible exception of countries in total poverty where humanitarian prices prevail).

    We need tort reform. Many states moved from auto accident lawsuits to no-fault insurance. Maybe we need the same for medicine.

    We can permit people to buy insurance across state lines. There is a market for lower-cost coverage.

    I sure cannot solve the overall problem, but I think some incremental improvements are possible for both private insurance and Medicare/Medicaid.

    TMT

  48. Larry G Avatar

    what I like about the dialog is the opportunity – after the words fly – what we can agree on and what are not things that will see compromise early on.

    I'm always the optimist even though I come on pretty strong at times. we talk past each other at times and I think it's critical that we agree on the facts of what the problems are.

    My attitude about SS pretty much sums of this issue and that goes way, way back to the idea that without SS – what would happen?

    We know the answer.

    Some people will not save for their retirement – and if we were REALLY firm in our convictions we would not bail them out when they get old and destitute – we merely remind them that they put themselves in that situation and walk away.

    but we will not do that.

    when push comes to shove – we won't throw them into the streets and we won't let them die on the ground outside of an ER.

    so the next step is simple.

    what is the cheapest way to deal with the problem?

    and that's easy.

    you make them save if hey won't do it voluntarily.

    either they pay – or we pay.

    and that goes for health care benefits also.

    I'm against that folks get these scooters – at no cost.

    this pretty much tell us what is wrong with our system.

    Would those folks be getting those free scooters in it had to come out of their own pockets?

    maybe.. but what would happen if they had to pay their fair share?

    I'm not heartless about this.

    I'm the opposite.

    I'd rather see everyone be covered and everyone pay a share…

    that have some pay nothing – and the cost is then having some who cannot be covered.

    We have many, many folks on Medicare that get virtually all of their expenses covered – and I know for a fact that one of them gets about 100K in retirement benefits – and can afford all kinds of other goodies because his medical care is pretty much "free".

    but see.. it's not free.

    this guy and others like him – are at least part of the reason that Medicare (and the pvt healthcare system) will either go broke or double premiums – pick your poison.

    I don't want inferior health care as a consequence of a public system – I'm just like everyone else.

    but I think we already have one – because you just can't change doctors or shop around for the best price on an MRI…

    and the guys getting the scooter? If they had to pay 1/2, would there be competition for better priced scooters?

    now.. in no healthcare system that I know of that is pvt – is there real competition …

    I don't know why that is but 16 others countries started out like we did – with pvt insurance – and they all gave it up and none have come back to it.

    If it were so bad.. why has not a single country gone back?

    do we think Europeans are stupid and we are not?

  49. Anonymous Avatar

    One of the big, but largely unstated problems, with Medicare goes back to the establishment of Social Security. FDR decided that Social Security would be paid by, and paid to, everyone on a fairly equal basis, rejecting the call of some to make it a means-tested welfare program. As I understand it, Roosevelt made this decision to avoid the risk people would oppose Social Security as another welfare or giveaway program. From this perspective, FDR was incredibly successful.

    But this decision also established the basic social contract with the American public. We all need to pay Social Security and Medicare taxes because we will all receive their benefits someday. I think that it would be difficult to change Roosevelt's social contract and, if it were changed by means testing, support for both Social Security and Medicare would diminish over time.

    I'm not arguing for or against changing the basic rule. I'm just trying to raise another important issue, IMO.

    TMT

  50. as they say – that was then – this is now.

    When we have far more working than retired – the demographics worked just fine but they don't any more now that the ratio was reversed.

    As much as people are hollering about SS & Medicare going broke and stealing from our children and untenable debt ….

    they're good at that but they're not so hot at making the hard choices.

    everyone thinks we can "tweak" our way out of this – and I'm a skeptic on that.

    It's similar to how many viewed the TARP/Stimulus – that -in more than a few folks view, it was not needed and that we would not have fallen into a depression without it.

    sorry.. for me.. when the economic advisors from two very different administrations are saying the same thing – I'm not going to disregard it.

    CBO says our debt goes haywire – from our entitlement programs.

    I believe them.

    and no way to pay it off because healthcare is going to eat our GNP.

    I just don't think we fix this by nibbling around the edges.

    we must make major changes in our entitlement programs and we must find a way to stop pvt healthcare from becoming 16% of our economy.

  51. Anonymous Avatar

    Larry, I'm not arguing the merits about what is needed to fix entitlements. Rather, I'm simply trying to add another variable that needs to be considered — means testing overturns the existing social contract. A number of social contracts have been reversed in the past and this one could be too. But there will be other consequences, including a big drop in support for the underlying programs.

    As you correctly note, tweaking the edges won't fix entitlements. Similarly, just taxing the "rich" doesn't raise lots of dollars — witness California today.

    Entitlement changes will require the government to dig deeply into the middle class. Requiring the middle class to pay without receiving similar benefits will reduce support for the underlying programs. IMO, this issue also needs to be part of the debate.

    TMT

  52. we agree on the precedent aspect – sort of

    we already so a level of means testing for ss contributions though not in the way you might think.

    we exempt contributions for some people and higher incomes.

    we also have restrictions on pay outs. For instance, many career govt employees do not receive social security benefits even though they did pay into it – but not enough quarters to qualify.

    so you end up with situations where a person could work at a job for 2 more quarters and then qualify for hundreds of dollars of monthly benefits.

    It's the same for Medicare. People have to buy Medicare gap policies because some expenses are not covered – and it does not matter how much you paid into Medicare to start with.

    my point is that some of this is not as well understood as it might be and if it were, people might become more comfortable with the concept.

    we already means-test quite a few benefits – low income housing and loans, free or reduce price school lunches, Medicaid and Schips…

    and my bet is that if you asked the American public if they had a choice between being able to offer health care to everyone on a means-tested basis verses not covering everyone – they may well choose the means-tested path.

    there may well be other, even better approaches but the most relevant aspect of this is whether or not we'll find the best of the bad choices or whether we'll disagree with each one until we end up not making any choices.

    that's the problem we have right now with our conservative folks.

    they don't like any of the choices, least of all the govt-involved path so they play this game of "we could do this or we could do that" – but none of them will agree as a group what they will support so they end up opposed to anything.

    For myself – it is no contest if the choice is between two people – one of them with a 100K income who is completely covered and the second guy with a 50K income he has no coverage.

    this is not moral but more important it's dumb from a macro economic perspective also.

    because ultimately the richer of the two is not only going to pay more but they are going to pay more for emergency care than their would for primary care to deal with the root causes of the higher priced emergency care.

    once we made the decision to not let people die outside ER rooms, that others who could pay – would pay – we committed ourselves to means testing.

    right?

    we just don't recognize what our earlier decision really meant.

    the only way not to have means testing is to reverse our opinion and agree no matter how much you make – you will not have to contribute to efforts to keep people from dying outside of ERs.

    do you agree with this logic?

  53. I would say that we need to establish a mindset to better understand what entitlement care is and what entitlement insurance is – and what they are not.

    What you should be ENTITLED to is basic care in exchange (or a basic pension) for your minimal but mandatory contributions to an entitlement program.

    No extras. No "elective" goodies.

    if you don't have a Medicare Gap policy – then you won't get elective therapies and treatments unless you pay a substantial co-pay on a per incident basis.

    Your basic case – Primary care is fully covered (that's your entitlement) and your catastrophic is fully covered (that's the actual insurance) but if you want that scooter and you haven't purchased a Gap Policy – then you need to figure out how to get your share of the money for it.

    There may be some charitable organizations, friends, family members, etc – but no free lunch.

    we need to do everything we can to make people understand that they are primarily responsible for their own welfare – that we will help those than cannot help themselves but that others will be held accountable for being self-reliant.

    Everytime I see one of the shows about black-on-black killings in some of these neighborhoods – I can't help but think about how many of those involved were depending on govt aid for their existence.

    we cannot have a system that functions this way – and remember this is not a right-wing conservative saying this.

    there is a big misconception here that folks to the left of Attila the Hun are in favor of an entitlement society.

    Nothing could be further from the truth in my case.

    The fundamental job of govt is to not have a society where folks die on the steps of the ER…or similar.

    it's that simple.

    the seemingly likely view that not letting them die on the steps on the ER means.. that we will fully take care of them no matter what – is wrong wrong wrong…

    there is a ton of distance between those two.

    call it tough love or in that church even if at a different pew.

    we must make it crystal clear to anyone who gets an entitlement that they bear equal responsibility for the reasons why they get an entitlement in the first place – and what things that the entitlement does not cover – and will not cover – that's it's up to them to fill the gap.

    I just won't go along with any philosophy that essentially ends up advocating that we let folks die on the ER steps.

    If means-testing is a way of deciding what proportions of shared responsibility there should be – as opposed to one site fits all (and people die on the steps) then I'm for that solution.

    my only dogma – is that out of the universe of potential solutions for these problems – that the one we cannot pick in the ER steps.

Leave a Reply