The Opposition is Heard

[Philip Coates]

> unsupported assertion..condescending..your errors..Jedi Master/schoolmarm

troll ignored

[Selene]

Oh no!

Phil was right! Here is a perfect example of a tax paying citizen, hired by the insurance company's, wearing Brooks Brothers clothing, clearly a right wing tea bagging extremist...[and you know he has a huge Swastika under that Brooks Brothers shirt] PUSHING HIS FACE INTO THE HAND OF A DEMOCRATIC DISTRICT LEADER.

http://www.drudgereport.com/hc2.jpg

This kind of rude behavior has to be stopped and we have THE ANSWER:

Ok the O'bama joker picture was supposed to be here - working on my picture skills Michael lol

Adam

Edited August 8, 2009 by Selene

[Darrell Hougen]

Here is the MSNBC coverage of the Florida event. They are clearly carrying water for the Democrats on this.

First, the female reporter "explained" that representative Cathy Castor "couldn't get in a word in edgewise," and that that was the reason she ended up leaving. Nice excuse. They did let the businessman, whose shirt was torn, speak, but then the female reporter said, "Yeah, you can't get a whole lot of information about health care reform when all that nonsense is going on." Is "nonsense" an unbiased characterization of the actions of rightfully angry citizens? (I know I'm preaching to the choir, here, so my question is really rhetorical.)

The reporter then followed with the smear that the protesters may have been "riled up by industry groups who want to kill reform." I guess it doesn't occur to her that the protesters might have been riled up by the fact that the government is trying to deprive them of their freedom and ruin the health care system in this country. Anti-leftist protesters are always viewed as the stooges of big business which, in turn, is always viewed as the evil culprit. No attention is ever paid to big government by those on the left.

The reporter then read RNC Chairman Michael Steele's comment in a snooty and dismissive tone of voice. She followed that with a report on a Republican meeting in which the audience cheered the idea that some of the Democratic meetings were almost lynchings. At the end of that segment, she snidely addressed the way that the Republican representative handled the situation. She then returned to the theme of uncovering the people "behind" the protests and the tough questions, as if it were somehow a crime for ordinary citizens to organize, share talking points, and make their case to their elected representatives.

A little later she reported that the AFL-CIO is planning to send its members around the country to "actively engage those who would otherwise disrupt the town halls." What are they going to do? Beat up Granny? I found that whole notion very disturbing.

Finally, the male reporter returned to trying to blame pro freedom groups for the violence despite the fact that the group they chose to interview, Freedom Works, represented by Matt Kibbe, does nothing more than provide information and talking points to their supporters. So, the entire report attempted to evade the issue that people are genuinely angry about the situation and make the Democratic representatives look like victims.

Darrell

[Jonathan]

> unsupported assertion..condescending..your errors..Jedi Master/schoolmarm

troll ignored

Well, my offer still stands. If you'd like to have conversations in which I avoid being a smart ass in response to your condescending Objectivist Jedi Master/schoolmarm attitude, then drop the condescending Objectivist Jedi Master/schoolmarm attitude. Or is condescension more important to you than having polite, reasonable discussions? If you can't be expected to alter your behavior which is impeding intelligent discussions, why should others be expected to alter theirs? I mean, as I see it, bringing a snotty schoolmarm attitude to a discussion can be just as disruptive and detrimental as shouting down an opponent. Are you man enough to change and make the world a better place, Phil?

J

[Jonathan]

The posts crossed Jonathan, but that will allow the real paranoia to creep in that we are a conspiracy! ;) B)

Well, I think you've let gone and let the cat out of the bag, so we might as well admit the truth: the evil insurance companies are making us post supportive comments here about the protesters.

J

[Chris Grieb]

I hope the insurance companies will note my name and send me my check.

I think I saw on Hit& Run that insurance companies are already on board in favor of Obama Care.

[Selene]

I hope the insurance companies will note my name and send me my check.

I think I saw on Hit& Run that insurance companies are already on board in favor of Obama Care.

You did Chris and they are.

So is the AARP which is a lobbying group with huge coffers of money. I would assume that no one donates or is a member because it ain't worth the codger discount at the Motel Six!

Might be at the Waldorf though.

So is the AMA which "represents" about a third of the Doctor type folks, but at a meeting in Texas:

Physicians speak out on health care bill

Many say the costly plan won't fix problems

By CINDY HORSWELL

HOUSTON CHRONICLE

Aug. 6, 2009, 10:04PM

Johnny Hanson Chronicle

Rep. Kevin Brady said Medicare needs to be fixed before new reforms are enacted.

Physicians jammed a town hall meeting in The Woodlands on Thursday, expressing fears about the cost and effectiveness of a health care reform bill that could come up for a vote in Congress as early as September.

U.S. Rep. Kevin Brady, R-The Woodlands, hosted the meeting attended by about 90 physicians at Memorial Hermann Hospital-The Woodlands.

“The bottom line is that doctors don't want socialized medicine — another flawed health care system like Medicare. They don't believe it will lower the costs or improve quality,” Brady said. “Medicare is already going bankrupt and not quality care. It also shifts medical costs onto other paying customers. It needs to be fixed first.”

The bill is designed to insure 94 percent of all Americans (excluding those covered by Medicare, which kicks in at age 65) and would cost an estimated $1.5 trillion over 10 years. The revenue to pay for it would come from $544 billion over the next decade in income taxes on single people making more than $280,000 annually and couples making more than $350,000 annually; $37 billion in business taxes; $500 billion in cuts to Medicare and Medicaid; and sizable penalties paid by individuals and employers who don't obtain coverage.

“I am very concerned about what this will cost us in terms of dollars,” said Dr. William Parker, the chief medical officer where the meeting was held. “Before this week, they did not tell us any details of the plan. We've had too little time to read, digest and discuss something that will be such a major overhaul of the health care system.”

U.S. Rep. Gene Green, a Democrat who represents a blue-collar area from Baytown to Denver Harbor east of Houston, has held four meetings on the health care plan and received mixed reviews.

“There seems to be an organized Republican effort to have people come to a Democrat's town meeting and dominate the discussions,” Green said. “Some have admitted they don't live in my area. This has never happened to me before.”

He plans to hold more meetings and only admit those who live in his district. Green said many citizens seem to have misconceptions about the plan. He said it will be a boost for his lower-income district, which has many more uninsured residents than The Woodlands.

“This plan will provide health care for 223,000 of the 243,000 who have no health care plans in my district,” he said,...

For some reason the paper's "web page" (now there is a statement) ends there.

Adam

[Selene]

> unsupported assertion..condescending..your errors..Jedi Master/schoolmarm

troll ignored

Phil is just gets better for us ancient sophists...

This is an actual United States Senator - one of 100 votes. This man should not be allowed to be a code enforcement officer!

The Sargent Schultz of the Senate:

Adam

Post Script: We cover our trolls back in this conspiracy - thank you my electronic check just appeared in my account from the Rove Insurance Pack [R.I.P.].

[jeffrey smith]

It's a pleasure to see Americans getting angry at their "representatives" at long last.

If, as the Administration tells us, there are 40 million people who are uninsured, how in the name of sanity can they simultaneously tell us that no one will have to wait for life-saving treatment when those 40 million are added to those seeking care from the same number of doctors we have now and the same number of hospitals and the same amount of medical l equipment. I cannot remember a time when our politicians, never models of honesty, ever looked us in the eye and told us such preposterous, blatant, flagrant, barefaced, impudent, shameless, unmitigated, unabashed, brazen, stupid, transparent and insolent lies.

I only hope, if any of the proposed bills goes through, that the Congress will be requred to accept the same health care as the rest of us -- except, of course, if that were so, none of the bills would go through.

Barbara

That point is in fact the least problematic part. Those who do need medical attention and can't pay for it themselves end up in ERs and hospitals, where their treatment is underwritten through the charges paid by other patients and their insurance plans, and (if it's a public hospital) through whatever state and local taxes

are used to fund the public hospitals in a given area. (Where I live, it's part of the property taxes.)

What Obamacare will do is to encourage these people to go to doctors more often, with resulting impacts in that part of the equation. Proponents argue that more office visits result in better preventative care, resulting in fewer people needing to go to the hospital. That's all speculative, of course.

What does seem to be bogus is the figure of 40 million--at the very least, we need to lop off from that the large number of people who are in some form or other "between insurance" (switching jobs, etc.) and the large number of people who are young enough to not need to consider insurance a pressing issue beyond paying for emergency medical needs (IOW, who are more likely to need help because of an auto accident than a heart attack).

[Selene]

Jeff:

Agreed. I am looking into the Mass. "experiment", the "Romney sacred underwear Plan because it appears to be doing really poorly. I heard, have not confirmed, that they were cutting

off legal aliens from coverage?????

I have not had the time maybe Gulch who resides in Mass. and is a Doctor can give us some in state intel.

Your point about the "47 million" has been brilliantly analyzed in Liberty and Tyranny which is a brilliant book and a great read even though it is about our amazing founders and their unique and revolutionary construct that we still have.

My understanding is that number is bottom line "hard core medically insurable class" that is "legitimately uninsured is between 11 and 19 million.

My additional understanding is that it would cost after I doubled the guestimates about $100, 000, 000, 000.00 [100 billion] which is a workable assigned risk number.

Additionally, investments by private entrepreneurs into prevention may also be profitable if the 100, for example, folks that go through their program save the assigned risk medical insurer

7% the would get a bonus as in the bonus we used to get if our loss ration was under 50% in auto policies for the year.

It was a bonus for writing good risks.

Adam

[Chris Grieb]

> unsupported assertion..condescending..your errors..Jedi Master/schoolmarm

troll ignored

Phil is just gets better for us ancient sophists...

This is an actual United States Senator - one of 100 votes. This man should not be allowed to be a code enforcement officer!

The Sargent Schultz of the Senate:

Adam

Post Script: We cover our trolls back in this conspiracy - thank you my electronic check just appeared in my account from the Rove Insurance Pack [R.I.P.].

Small correction: He's only a congressman

[studiodekadent]

I say the following says it all in defense of protesters at town hall meetings.

I can't believe that I'm about to say this but...

Hillary, that's a wonderful thing to say, and I can't object to a single thing about it.

She's completely correct. There is nothing intrinsically un-American about disagreeing with the adgenda of any administration. The United States was not founded on the ideals of obedience and loyalty to the State.

[Jonathan]

If, as the Administration tells us, there are 40 million people who are uninsured, how in the name of sanity can they simultaneously tell us that no one will have to wait for life-saving treatment when those 40 million are added to those seeking care from the same number of doctors we have now and the same number of hospitals and the same amount of medical l equipment.

The reasoning that some proponents of government reform are giving is that a variety of massive cost-savings and system efficiencies will be implemented, such as electronic records keeping, the elimination of current bad incentives which motivate caregivers to waste resources and provide ineffective care to patients in order to make more money (I've read about studies by Mayo and other groups in which it's pretty clear that caregivers frequently mismanage their patients' treatment, dragging out their care and milking them for more money), and a focus on early and preventative treatment of the five chronic, progressive diseases which create the most costs (as high as 70% of the nation's health care expenditures), which are diabetes, congestive heart failure, coronary artery disease, asthma and depression, as well as a focus on more effectively dealing with comorbidities of those five chronic diseases, which almost everyone seems to agree that our current system does a very poor job of handling.

As I understand it, there's a lot of room for improvement in our system, and the critics of the system have some legitimate points. The problem is that most of them don't seem to consider the law of unintended consequences and the new incentives for other types of wastefulness that their proposed solutions will create, thereby eliminating the expected savings, and possibly making things much worse.

J

[edited to add:]

P.S. An additional argument that the pro-reform people make is that the uninsured are already receiving treatment despite not being insured, so their numbers will not have to be added to those seeking care from the same number of doctors. The point is that instead of visiting a family doctor for their common ailments, they're now visiting emergency rooms. The argument is that getting them to use a regular doctor will put less strain on the system.

Edited August 9, 2009 by Jonathan

[anonrobt]

It's a pleasure to see Americans getting angry at their "representatives" at long last.

If, as the Administration tells us, there are 40 million people who are uninsured, how in the name of sanity can they simultaneously tell us that no one will have to wait for life-saving treatment when those 40 million are added to those seeking care from the same number of doctors we have now and the same number of hospitals and the same amount of medical l equipment. I cannot remember a time when our politicians, never models of honesty, ever looked us in the eye and told us such preposterous, blatant, flagrant, barefaced, impudent, shameless, unmitigated, unabashed, brazen, stupid, transparent and insolent lies.

I only hope, if any of the proposed bills goes through, that the Congress will be requred to accept the same health care as the rest of us -- except, of course, if that were so, none of the bills would go through.

Barbara

That point is in fact the least problematic part. Those who do need medical attention and can't pay for it themselves end up in ERs and hospitals, where their treatment is underwritten through the charges paid by other patients and their insurance plans, and (if it's a public hospital) through whatever state and local taxes

are used to fund the public hospitals in a given area. (Where I live, it's part of the property taxes.)

What Obamacare will do is to encourage these people to go to doctors more often, with resulting impacts in that part of the equation. Proponents argue that more office visits result in better preventative care, resulting in fewer people needing to go to the hospital. That's all speculative, of course.

What does seem to be bogus is the figure of 40 million--at the very least, we need to lop off from that the large number of people who are in some form or other "between insurance" (switching jobs, etc.) and the large number of people who are young enough to not need to consider insurance a pressing issue beyond paying for emergency medical needs (IOW, who are more likely to need help because of an auto accident than a heart attack).

that 40 million is indeed a bogus numbed, admittedly thrown out without foundation... the proper number is more in the neighborhood of 8-10 million, a far cry, and one in which not need government bureaucratic coercion to take care of... http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2007/20070718153509.aspx

[Selene]

This seems to have some decent detail in it.

The '47 Million Uninsured' Myth

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, August 29, 2007 4:20 PM PT

Health Care: The latest poverty data highlight what many keeping calling the "crisis" of the uninsured. Some 47 million people lack medical insurance, a record. A social disaster? Hardly.

Related Topics: Health Care

It goes without saying that there now seems to be a broad consensus that the great tragedy of our health care system is that so many people go uncovered. One glance at the data certainly suggests that's the case.

That might be why a broad spectrum of politicians, ranging from Sen. Hillary Clinton on the left to Mitt Romney on the right, advocate universal health care as key to health reform. Even Wal-Mart has joined with its nemesis, the Service Employees International Union, to call for universal health care.

But, like so many other things that get spun in the media, most of what you know about the uninsured is wrong.

Take the idea that, somehow, this is part of the growing split between the haves and have-nots in this country. It's not that simple.

One of the shocking things in the Census Bureau's report this week on poverty and health care in America is that so many well-to-do people can easily afford health care, but choose to go without it.

The median household income, according to the data released this week, is $48,200. You might be surprised to discover that 38% of all the uninsured — that's almost 18 million people — have incomes higher than $50,000 a year. An astounding 20% of all uninsured have incomes over $75,000. These are people who can afford coverage.

Is it really a good idea to tax working people to subsidize those who refuse to pay for a necessity they could easily buy? The answer, of course, is no.

One other breakdown of the data is instructive. By far the group with highest share of uninsured is Hispanics. Some 34.1% of all Hispanics lack coverage.

That latter piece of data is alarming. Drilling even deeper, one finds that fully 27% of all the uninsured in the U.S. — that's 12.6 million people — aren't even citizens.

Not coincidentally, the government also estimates that about 12 million illegals now reside in the U.S., though some think tanks put the number as high as 20 million.

Putting the two together, this suggests that — surprise — a major reason for the uninsured "problem" is our failure to enforce our border.

By some estimates, another 20% or so is uninsured only for a couple of months a year. As TV journalist John Stossel recently noted, as many as a third of all those eligible for public health programs don't even bother to apply.

Once you whittle it down, you start to realize that the number of hard-core uninsured who are citizens is in fact fairly small — perhaps half the reported 47 million or less.

Yet it's not clear that shrinking the 47 million to zero would help all that much. Because the uninsured still get health care. They get it through Medicaid, the state-run, federally funded program for the indigent. They get care, by law, in any emergency room in the country.

No, that's not the best way to care for someone. But to say that people have "no access to health care," as we often hear, simply is a lie.

Moreover, it's not clear that those who go the emergency care route are worse off. A study by health economists Helen Levy of the University of Michigan and David Meltzer of the University of Chicago found "no evidence" that boosting coverage for all would be a cost-effective solution to improve overall health.

If there is a real problem here it is a tax code that encourages third-party payment of our health care bills, thus driving up costs. An estimated 86% of all health care purchases go through third parties. As anyone with a credit card understands, letting someone else buy something for you without any controls is an invitation to financial disaster.

Making consumers responsible for spending their own health care dollars — and letting them benefit when they control costs — is the real answer to our "uninsured problem."

It would lead to lower costs, and wider coverage — something universal care advocates promise, but can't deliver.

The section that I highlighted is possibly one of the top 4 or 5 critical decisions that we as a still semi-free people need to decide. And we need to decide it.

Adam

Edited August 9, 2009 by Selene

[Barbara Branden]

Jonathan: "The reasoning that some proponents of government reform are giving is that a variety of massive cost-savings and system efficiencies will be implemented, such as electronic records keeping, the elimination of current bad incentives which motivate caregivers to waste resources and provide ineffective care to patients in order to make more money (I've read about studies by Mayo and other groups in which it's pretty clear that caregivers frequently mismanage their patients' treatment, dragging out their care and milking them for more money), and a focus on early and preventative treatment of the five chronic, progressive diseases which create the most costs (as high as 70% of the nation's health care expenditures), which are diabetes, congestive heart failure, coronary artery disease, asthma and depression, as well as a focus on more effectively dealing with comorbidities of those five chronic diseases, which almost everyone seems to agree that our current system does a very poor job of handling."

Jonathan, this is pie in the sky. it's not what happens, it's not what can possibly happen. Doctors today are shamefully underpaid by Medicare and Medicaid, and young people, as a result, are not entering medical schools in nearly the numbers they once did. They are not willing to face 12 years of difficult and expensive study and then a lifetime of being underpaid and under-appreciated -- a situation which will only become worse with nationalized health care. In Canada, ny sister-in-law had a 9-hour operation for a brain aneureism that had burst; the surgeon, who saved her life, was world-famous in his field. He was paid $400.

Sure, some doctors are dishonest, as are some in any profession or trade., But as I pointed out, it is the million dollar judgments awarded in malpractice suits and the prohibitive resulting cost of malpractice insurance that has driven many doctors out of their profession and has been a major cause of questionable tests and drawn-out treatment.

As for a new focus on prevention, which nationalized health care supposedly will bring about -- doctors in such systems have no time for such luxuries as prevention. As for the "everybody" who seem to agree that illnesses such as congestive heart disease, coronary artery disease, depression, etc., are poorly handled -- these are among the areas in which medical miracles have been performed in the last few decades, extending our lives to an extent heretofore undreamed of. But not in countries where the government controls heath care. On his show today, Greg Beck announced the prognosis for prostate cancer in the US, Canada, and England. In America, the relative 5-year survival rate is 100%; in Canada it is 95%; in England it is 77%.

Daniel Hannan was on Beck's show today, discussing the situation in England. Healh care, far from creating "massive cost-savings and system efficiencies," is the single biggest item in the British budget. The health bureaucracy outnumbers British doctors and nurses, and is the 3rd biggest employer in the world. Yes, that's right, in the world.

Here are some interesting posts to the yahoo forum, "Atlantis."

Fron George Smith:

"Having grown up on Air Force bases, I was accustomed to waiting four

hours or more every time I needed to see a doctor at a base hospital.

Indeed, a six hour wait was not uncommon. You could count on a visit

consuming the better part of a day, even with an 'appointment' -- which

was, in effect, a word without meaning.

"Visits were free, so parents would take their kids to doctors for the

most minor problems. If your kid had a runny nose, you took him to the

doctor. If he stubbed his toe, you took him to the doctor. Waiting rooms

were always jammed.

"After my father retired from the military, I was absolutely amazed by

how quickly one could get in to to see a civilian doctor. It was like a

different world."

From Tim Hopkins, a Canadian:

"It's not hard to see what a 'single payer' system has done to our

communities and the medical profession, and how despite all the claims,

the poor are hurt the worst under a system that was allegedly designed to

benefit them.  In the city where I live there is one walk in clinic for

a population of over 100,000.  There is one hospital with usually no more

than one ER physician on duty, even on busy nights.  The average wait after

seeing an overworked triage nurse is between 6 and 9 hours.  The tension

with people circling around the nurses' station becomes so explosive

that volunteers are deployed by staff to patrol the ER and calm people down.

"The corridors are permanently lined with stretchers because there are no

hospital beds available for patients who need to be admitted, and

sometimes there are two to a stretcher.  Once nurses end their shift, they turn

their phones off because they are almost certainly on a callback list when the

ER becomes overcrowded.

"'Gridlock' occurs when the demand for health care

products and services is so overwhelming that patient needs are

're-evaluated', meaning sick people are just sent home to deteriorate

and in some cases die out of sight and below the radar of government statistics

and benchmarks.

"There is a lot of talk about legal ways to 'jump the queues', such as

calling for an ambulance so you can arrive at the ER in priority with

your chart already filled out.  For this you pay a $50 charge if it was

deemed unnecessary, but one never knows how many lives may have been saved this

way.  To my knowledge, private ownership of defibrillators/heart pumps

are illegal, although some public places are now allowed to use them.   A

pilot program launched last year allows people who need prescription refills

and other forms of doctor issued permission slips to slither ahead of the

general queues at the urgent care clinics for a yearly fee.  Of course,

that program is subject to rationing so less than 100 people will enjoy this

special privilege.  The rest wait, do without or seek alternative care

through the underground economy (the 'railroad' to the US is not an

option we can all avail ourselves to, but it would be a shame to lose it)."

From Dennis May:

"As an interesting side note it seems that not only are the rich fleeing California and New York and other high tax states [causing their progressive tax systems to implode] but many see the Federal Government getting so far out of control that many wealthy people are fleeing the US altogether.  The rate of US citizens leaving the US has doubled from what it was prior to Obama running for president.  Those surveying the results expect the number of people fleeing to double or triple again in the next year.  If Obama care happens I expect the elderly and wealthy to flee even faster."

What is astonishing is not the anger and the sin of shouting at Town Hall meetings on the part of people who have some understanding of their future under governmental health care -- what is astonishing is that they have not dumped their supposed representatives into Boston Harbor.

Barbara

[galtgulch]

Jonathan: "The reasoning that some proponents of government reform are giving is that a variety of massive cost-savings and system efficiencies will be implemented, such as electronic records keeping, the elimination of current bad incentives which motivate caregivers to waste resources and provide ineffective care to patients in order to make more money (I've read about studies by Mayo and other groups in which it's pretty clear that caregivers frequently mismanage their patients' treatment, dragging out their care and milking them for more money), and a focus on early and preventative treatment of the five chronic, progressive diseases which create the most costs (as high as 70% of the nation's health care expenditures), which are diabetes, congestive heart failure, coronary artery disease, asthma and depression, as well as a focus on more effectively dealing with comorbidities of those five chronic diseases, which almost everyone seems to agree that our current system does a very poor job of handling."

Jonathan, this is pie in the sky. it's not what happens, it's not what can possibly happen. Doctors today are shamefully underpaid by Medicare and Medicaid, and young people, as a result, are not entering medical schools in nearly the numbers they once did. They are not willing to face 12 years of difficult and expensive study and then a lifetime of being underpaid and under-appreciated -- a situation which will only become worse with nationalized health care. In Canada, ny sister-in-law had a 9-hour operation for a brain aneureism that had burst; the surgeon, who saved her life, was world-famous in his field. He was paid $400.

Sure, some doctors are dishonest, as are some in any profession or trade., But as I pointed out, it is the million dollar judgments awarded in malpractice suits and the prohibitive resulting cost of malpractice insurance that has driven many doctors out of their profession and has been a major cause of questionable tests and drawn-out treatment.

As for a new focus on prevention, which nationalized health care supposedly will bring about -- doctors in such systems have no time for such luxuries as prevention. As for the "everybody" who seem to agree that illnesses such as congestive heart disease, coronary artery disease, depression, etc., are poorly handled -- these are among the areas in which medical miracles have been performed in the last few decades, extending our lives to an extent heretofore undreamed of. But not in countries where the government controls heath care. On his show today, Greg Beck announced the prognosis for prostate cancer in the US, Canada, and England. In America, the relative 5-year survival rate is 100%; in Canada it is 95%; in England it is 77%.

Daniel Hannan was on Beck's show today, discussing the situation in England. Healh care, far from creating "massive cost-savings and system efficiencies," is the single biggest item in the British budget. The health bureaucracy outnumbers British doctors and nurses, and is the 3rd biggest employer in the world. Yes, that's right, in the world.

Here are some interesting posts to the yahoo forum, "Atlantis."

Fron George Smith:

"Having grown up on Air Force bases, I was accustomed to waiting four

hours or more every time I needed to see a doctor at a base hospital.

Indeed, a six hour wait was not uncommon. You could count on a visit

consuming the better part of a day, even with an 'appointment' -- which

was, in effect, a word without meaning.

"Visits were free, so parents would take their kids to doctors for the

most minor problems. If your kid had a runny nose, you took him to the

doctor. If he stubbed his toe, you took him to the doctor. Waiting rooms

were always jammed.

"After my father retired from the military, I was absolutely amazed by

how quickly one could get in to to see a civilian doctor. It was like a

different world."

From Tim Hopkins, a Canadian:

"It's not hard to see what a 'single payer' system has done to our

communities and the medical profession, and how despite all the claims,

the poor are hurt the worst under a system that was allegedly designed to

benefit them.  In the city where I live there is one walk in clinic for

a population of over 100,000.  There is one hospital with usually no more

than one ER physician on duty, even on busy nights.  The average wait after

seeing an overworked triage nurse is between 6 and 9 hours.  The tension

with people circling around the nurses' station becomes so explosive

that volunteers are deployed by staff to patrol the ER and calm people down.

"The corridors are permanently lined with stretchers because there are no

hospital beds available for patients who need to be admitted, and

sometimes there are two to a stretcher.  Once nurses end their shift, they turn

their phones off because they are almost certainly on a callback list when the

ER becomes overcrowded.

"'Gridlock' occurs when the demand for health care

products and services is so overwhelming that patient needs are

're-evaluated', meaning sick people are just sent home to deteriorate

and in some cases die out of sight and below the radar of government statistics

and benchmarks.

"There is a lot of talk about legal ways to 'jump the queues', such as

calling for an ambulance so you can arrive at the ER in priority with

your chart already filled out.  For this you pay a $50 charge if it was

deemed unnecessary, but one never knows how many lives may have been saved this

way.  To my knowledge, private ownership of defibrillators/heart pumps

are illegal, although some public places are now allowed to use them.   A

pilot program launched last year allows people who need prescription refills

and other forms of doctor issued permission slips to slither ahead of the

general queues at the urgent care clinics for a yearly fee.  Of course,

that program is subject to rationing so less than 100 people will enjoy this

special privilege.  The rest wait, do without or seek alternative care

through the underground economy (the 'railroad' to the US is not an

option we can all avail ourselves to, but it would be a shame to lose it)."

From Dennis May:

"As an interesting side note it seems that not only are the rich fleeing California and New York and other high tax states [causing their progressive tax systems to implode] but many see the Federal Government getting so far out of control that many wealthy people are fleeing the US altogether.  The rate of US citizens leaving the US has doubled from what it was prior to Obama running for president.  Those surveying the results expect the number of people fleeing to double or triple again in the next year.  If Obama care happens I expect the elderly and wealthy to flee even faster."

What is astonishing is not the anger and the sin of shouting at Town Hall meetings on the part of people who have some understanding of their future under governmental health care -- what is astonishing is that they have not dumped their supposed representatives into Boston Harbor.

Barbara

Barbara,

It is tempting to wish that your comments and quotes above were read by the entire population so they would understand what Obama's health plan would be like for them, but it seems that many do already have a good idea.

Do you suppose that Obama is oblivious to the consequences or that he has deluded himself into thinking that somehow it will work here despite its failure everywhere in the world it has been implemented?

You may treat this question as rhetorical if you like.

gulch

www.campaignforliberty.com 194,322

[Chris Grieb]

This seems to have some decent detail in it.

The '47 Million Uninsured' Myth

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, August 29, 2007 4:20 PM PT

Health Care: The latest poverty data highlight what many keeping calling the "crisis" of the uninsured. Some 47 million people lack medical insurance, a record. A social disaster? Hardly.

Related Topics: Health Care

It goes without saying that there now seems to be a broad consensus that the great tragedy of our health care system is that so many people go uncovered. One glance at the data certainly suggests that's the case.

That might be why a broad spectrum of politicians, ranging from Sen. Hillary Clinton on the left to Mitt Romney on the right, advocate universal health care as key to health reform. Even Wal-Mart has joined with its nemesis, the Service Employees International Union, to call for universal health care.

But, like so many other things that get spun in the media, most of what you know about the uninsured is wrong.

Take the idea that, somehow, this is part of the growing split between the haves and have-nots in this country. It's not that simple.

One of the shocking things in the Census Bureau's report this week on poverty and health care in America is that so many well-to-do people can easily afford health care, but choose to go without it.

The median household income, according to the data released this week, is $48,200. You might be surprised to discover that 38% of all the uninsured — that's almost 18 million people — have incomes higher than $50,000 a year. An astounding 20% of all uninsured have incomes over $75,000. These are people who can afford coverage.

Is it really a good idea to tax working people to subsidize those who refuse to pay for a necessity they could easily buy? The answer, of course, is no.

One other breakdown of the data is instructive. By far the group with highest share of uninsured is Hispanics. Some 34.1% of all Hispanics lack coverage.

That latter piece of data is alarming. Drilling even deeper, one finds that fully 27% of all the uninsured in the U.S. — that's 12.6 million people — aren't even citizens.

Not coincidentally, the government also estimates that about 12 million illegals now reside in the U.S., though some think tanks put the number as high as 20 million.

Putting the two together, this suggests that — surprise — a major reason for the uninsured "problem" is our failure to enforce our border.

By some estimates, another 20% or so is uninsured only for a couple of months a year. As TV journalist John Stossel recently noted, as many as a third of all those eligible for public health programs don't even bother to apply.

Once you whittle it down, you start to realize that the number of hard-core uninsured who are citizens is in fact fairly small — perhaps half the reported 47 million or less.

Yet it's not clear that shrinking the 47 million to zero would help all that much. Because the uninsured still get health care. They get it through Medicaid, the state-run, federally funded program for the indigent. They get care, by law, in any emergency room in the country.

No, that's not the best way to care for someone. But to say that people have "no access to health care," as we often hear, simply is a lie.

Moreover, it's not clear that those who go the emergency care route are worse off. A study by health economists Helen Levy of the University of Michigan and David Meltzer of the University of Chicago found "no evidence" that boosting coverage for all would be a cost-effective solution to improve overall health.

If there is a real problem here it is a tax code that encourages third-party payment of our health care bills, thus driving up costs. An estimated 86% of all health care purchases go through third parties. As anyone with a credit card understands, letting someone else buy something for you without any controls is an invitation to financial disaster.

Making consumers responsible for spending their own health care dollars — and letting them benefit when they control costs — is the real answer to our "uninsured problem."

It would lead to lower costs, and wider coverage — something universal care advocates promise, but can't deliver.

The section that I highlighted is possibly one of the top 4 or 5 critical decisions that we as a still semi-free people need to decide. And we need to decide it.

Adam

Selene; This is great information. Thanks!

[Darrell Hougen]

If there is a real problem here it is a tax code that encourages third-party payment of our health care bills, thus driving up costs. An estimated 86% of all health care purchases go through third parties. As anyone with a credit card understands, letting someone else buy something for you without any controls is an invitation to financial disaster.

That, I think, is the real key. I have been reading a book called, "The Cure, How Capitalism Can Save American Health Care," by Dr. David Gratzer. I would encourage everyone to read the book. It is simply chocked full of good information and coherent arguments. The primary argument is that the tax code, by encouraging payments to go through third party payers, creates perverse incentives. It is the "law of unintended consequences" (that Jonathan mentioned) writ large.

I will quote from the book in which Gratzer quotes David Henderson, who served on Reagan's Council of Economic Advisers:

Henderson recounts conversations with Martin Feldstein, the Harvard economist who served as chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers:

Feldstein gave examples like the following (which I updated with 2000 data): Consider an employer and an employee trying to decide on an extra dollar in taxable wages or an extra dollar of health insurance. The employee is earning, say, $40,000. If this employee has a spouse who earns $25,000, the family is likely to be in the 28% federal tax bracket. The social security tax rate (for employer and employee combined) is 12.4% The Medicare tax rate (employer and employee) is 2.9%. The employee's family is likely to be in at least a 5% marginal state income tax bracket. The marginal tax rate of this employee, who is by no means unusual, is 28% + 12.4% + 2.9% + 3.6%, for a whopping total of 46.9%.

Thus, almost half of an additional dollar of cash compensation goes to various governments and it is this half that can be avoided by taking additional compensation in health insurance rather than in cash. As long as the employee values an extra $1 in health insurance at more than about 53.1 cents (100 - 46.9) he or she is better off taking it in that form.

There is one problem with low-deductible and low-copayment plans: they cost a great deal to administer. A claim may still cost $20 to process even if it's for a $50 doctor's visit. Why would employees want such a wasteful system? Henderson suggests it's a matter of economics:

The employee is better off to charge a $50 doctor's bill to the insurance company -- even if the company spends $20 to process it -- and have the employer pay the extra $70 in a higher premium to cover the bill and the processing cost. The alternative -- having the employer pay an extra $70 in cash [to the employee] -- yields the employee only about $42 and costs the employer $75.36 ($70 + $5.36, the employer's portion of the social security and Medicare tax on $70).

Right up front there is a perverse incentive for the participants in the system to waste money. Having an insurance company pay a $50 bill, in the example, results in $20 being wasted. That's 40% of the original bill! But, as Gratzer makes clear, the damage done by having a third party payment system goes far beyond the obvious waste in the above example. Having a primarily third party payment system creates all kinds of perverse incentives that have served to hamper the development of an efficient marketplace in medicine. The result is that, while the cost (relative to wages) of everything else has dropped over time, the cost of medicine has gone up dramatically.

What to do?

I haven't gotten to Dr. Gratzer's suggestions yet, but I am going to suggest one obvious step: tax employer provided health insurance.

Previously, I had suggested that individual people be allowed the same tax exemption as employers when buying health insurance. However, I have changed my mind. That suggestion, unfortunately, creates the same perverse incentive to buy low-deductible, low-copayment insurance as the current system does and would continue to perpetuate a system in which people fail to "shop around." The element that makes markets work -- that causes them to develop efficient methods of doing business -- is that consumers "comparison shop" or "shop around" -- they compare quality, quantity and price for every good or service they purchase. In the absence of a market in which consumers pay for services out of their own pockets, efficient service models will never develop. Consider the fact that most doctors' offices close at 5 pm -- an example from Gratzer's book -- while groceries can be purchased 24 hours a day, in many locations.

Of course, people will balk at the idea of having their employer benefits taxed, but this could be sold to the public with a corresponding cut in the income tax of a size designed to ensure that tax payers pay no more, or perhaps somewhat less, than they are paying currently. As a practical proposal, taken up by a political candidate, I would think that it could be quite palatable to the general public if it were properly explained.

Of course, people would probably still buy catastrophic insurance to protect themselves against really huge bills that might still be possible. But, they would not be so over-insured as they are currently.

Darrell

Edited August 10, 2009 by Darrell Hougen

[Selene]

Darrell and assembled minds here on this forum:

We understand that we can sustain and win the argument with facts and logic, but this is not, and never has been about facts and logic.

This is about power and control.

Obiwan the incredible shrinking president ...

is running the marxist playbook. It has to be stopped, I was about to type "at all costs", but I would get reported if I actually typed "at all costs" which the

state would, at all costs, suppress.

I received my e-mail marching orders this morning:

"Members of Congress have been home for just a few days, and they're already facing increased pressure from insurance companies, special interests, and partisan attack organizations that are spending millions to block health insurance reform.

These groups are using scare tactics and spreading smears about the President's plan for reform, trying to incite constituents into lashing out at their representatives and disrupting their events.

The goal of these disruptions is for a few people to get a lot of media attention and hijack the entire public discourse. If they succeed, all Americans -- Democrats, Republicans, and Independents -- will continue to struggle under the broken status quo.

It's up to us to show Congress that those loudly opposing reform are a tiny minority being stirred up by special interests, and that a huge majority strongly supports enacting real health insurance reform in 2009.

Your representative, _________________, needs to hear that voters are demanding health insurance reform this year. Can you call the local office in __________? Let the person who answers know that you're a constituent. Then tell them: "Please fight for real health insurance reform in 2009. Americans are suffering under the current system and need change."

According to our records, you live in the _________________________th congressional district. Please call: Rep. ___________________ and they provide the office number. Then they provide a link for you to report the call.

Excellent operation. I have been following their incredibly effective and technologically superior campaign since before Iowa in 2007.

These folks mean business.

Adam

[Darrell Hougen]

[Darrell Hougen]

[Darrell Hougen]

[Selene]

Darrell:

Nice ones.

Hey Phil:

You were right here are more of the swastika wearing, shoving, screaming, pushing, emotional tax paying citizens as they shout down a Republican South Carolinian Congressman

who took over for Jim De Mint.

I know you will find them just totally devoid of any ability to attain the penultimate plain of ascendancy that you speak down from...

We know they are childlike with their quaint mentions of God...

and their funny little non French accents...

and their childlike waving of the Constitution and asking a specific questions...

you know the descendants of the musket carriers of our revolution.

http://www.youtube.c...player_embedded

Adam

Edited August 10, 2009 by Selene

[Darrell Hougen]

We understand that we can sustain and win the argument with facts and logic, but this is not, and never has been about facts and logic.

This is about power and control.

That may be, but if we want to win converts to our side, we're still going to have to use facts and logic. We need to understand the problem, master the arguments for its proper resolution, summarize those arguments in the form of talking points and slogans, and share them with other, like-minded, individuals who can spread them far and wide.

Naturally, others are already doing the same thing, but if we have anything to add to the discussion, we should add it. We should contact pro-liberty groups with our arguments so that they can strengthen their efforts to win the hearts and minds of the public.

There are certainly some arguments that are winners. People are afraid of rationing. If pro liberty groups keep pounding home the message that Obamacare will eventually lead to rationing, then we're half way there. The problem is that we also need positive arguments. People need to know what measures will lead to a less expensive, more acceptable system.

People understand the concept of tort reform and they know that it isn't being addressed by the current health care "change" effort. But tort reform, alone, probably isn't enough to fundamentally change things in the long run.

Also, the left has started to hit back on the rationing argument. They are saying that HMO's and other health care plans already subject people to some form of rationing. So, we need to argue that simple insurance reform is not the entire answer -- that it is free-market reforms that will ultimately provide Apple, Intel, Google, big screen, flat panel, LCD TV medicine -- sleek, efficient, consumer-friendly medicine.

Unfortunately, it's not a simple argument to make. At least, I don't see how to make it simple. Somehow, we have to understand the arguments well enough that they can be distilled down into sound-bites that people can understand.

Darrell