Gupta and Blunt Lament the Insurance Industry Being Put Out of Business
CNN's Rick Sanchez brings in Michael Moore basher Sanjay Gupta and Rep. Roy Blunt to lament the horrors of private insurance companies no longer being able to reap massive profits on the backs of United States citizens. If we did by some miracle actually ever get to universal health care in the U.S., it would not mean these companies are out of business completely. They would still be offering supplemental insurance to compliment the government plan. In the world of the Gupta's and Blunt's out there, that would be a tragedy.
Blunt goes so far as to cite Medicare Part D as an example of just how well Republican health care reform has worked with giving consumers "choices". Yeah, the "choice" to line the pharmaceutical industry's pocket.
SANCHEZ: Roy Blunt is joining us now. He is a congressman from Missouri. He is good enough to talk to us now.
Congressman, thanks for being with us. I imagine the news that you are hearing, that there are problems here in the city, are ones you would have expected. But let me start you somewhere else and ask you, OK, what would your plan be?
BLUNT: Actually, that's the interesting thing about this debate, I think, Rick, is everybody agrees on the top line issues. We believe, I believe, as the leader of our group on our side that's tried to bring our committees together to work on this, I think we are in generally broad agreement.
We need a plan that has -- we need a health care system that has access for everybody regardless of preexisting conditions, one that has more competition, more choice in a way that would make it more affordable, and one that ensures that people have the maximum opportunity to make their own choices about their doctor and their health care.
So we agree on the goals, and our biggest disagreements are how you get there. And probably the biggest disagreement of how you get there is whether the government is going to run a plan that doesn't broaden competition, but actually eventually eliminates all the competition.
SANCHEZ: It's interesting, and I will let you maybe discuss this with my colleague, Sanjay Gupta, who has been giving this a lot of thought, and he seems to be suggesting, and Sanjay, I don't want to put words in your mouth, but maybe something in the middle may be the answer, right?
Because if you do everything based on profit, as you suggest, congressman, that leaves you some holes as well. And we all know if you let the government take care of it itself, that may leave you some holes. Sanjay, would you suggest a mixture of the two would be the way to go?
GUPTA: There are several different issues sort of at play here. and as far as a mixture of the two goes, people have suggested sort of a public/private option. And I am not sure if Representative Blunt is referring to that specifically or how he feels about the idea of a public option.
Let me lay it out this way. The public option would be, the way it has been presented would be for people who cannot afford health care and need some sort of subsidy or some other system in which they can purchase into to get their health care insurance.
The concern, the critics will charge this, Rick. They will charge that a public option that has the backing of taxpayer dollars will be such a big competitor that it eventually will sort of remove the private insurance industry all together, and that won't be any kind of competition at all. That's what the critics will charge.
SANCHEZ: Let's hear from the congressman on that. What do you make of that, sir?
BLUNT: Rick, and I think you said a moment ago that I was for a system based on profit. I'm actually not. I'm for a system based on competition, which is different than a system based on profit.
SANCHEZ: Aren't they the same? Aren't the really the same. You compete because you want to do better than the next guy.
BLUNT: You want to have some profit, but you don't want to have profit that the marketplace really shouldn't allow. That's the problem with the current system is it sort of grew up out of nowhere after World War II without any thoughts to really having maximum choices for people.
An example of maximum choices for people would be Medicare Part D, where everybody every year gets to look at their provider and decide if they still like that provider or not.
But back to Sanjay's point. I think many of us could accept the idea that if at some point the competition we are confident would be there doesn't materialize, and these new choices can't be developed, you visit this again.
But if you start out with a government competitor, nobody describes this as just a competitor for people who can't get insurance. The idea of the government competitor is to somehow make the marketplace more competitive.
What happens is that government competitor eventually drives all the other competitors away. A government competitor is like an elephant in a room full of mice. The fast mice get out of the room as quick as they can. The slow mice get crushed by the elephant. And then the only thing left in the room is the elephant. And then, you have government-run health care, which is what we don't want.
We want more competition. We just don't happen to think the government trying to run a big health care operation is the best place to give people more choice, more competition, and actually, ultimately, lower prices with their health care.
SANCHEZ: That makes sense. We appreciate the analogy with the elephant. We certainly understand that, quite vivid, in fact. What do you expect the president to come out and tell the American people in the next five minutes?
BLUNT: I think he is going to try to explain these numbers that the Congressional Budget Office came up with that really say that this isn't just a trillion dollars over 10 years, it is actually $2 trillion over ten years because the first five years, no money is spent. The second five years, you are spending almost $200 billion a year.
That's not anywhere close to being paid for by either tax increases that have been proposed in this bill or Medicare cuts.
And surely, he will try to explain why both his own Office of Management and Budget and the Congressional Budget Office are wrong in saying this does nothing to slow down the spiraling health care costs.
There were two goals supposedly here. One was to get people insured who aren't insured, and two was to stop the spiraling health care cost. And I don't think this program does either of those, but it sure costs the American taxpayer and the American economy a lot of money.
Clearly the same type of person that lamented child labor laws and OSHA and the EPA. We'd all be slaving our short lives away in mills and factories, if they had their way.
could continue to do quite well if they have any intelligent people actually running things. UPS and Fed EX, and other shipping companies do very well in competition with the USPS. Of course, they have to work hard, do good jobs.
wow. that sounds good.
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
SCAB outfit?
blunt stated the obvious of what has been
happening with the health insurance and
pharmacy industry for the last few decades
under gop rethuglican control......
the gop elephant has stomped on everything
that will stop their oligarchy from stealing
every cent the middle and poor classes have.
blunt is a hypocrite taking our money to
pay for his health care. i say he can go
fuck himself, he's been fucking us for
years. maybe he will enjoy the dry hump....lol
Why should we care if the insurance companies are put out of business.
1. I think it is a business that should have never been started in the first place.
2. These companies have been making money from killing people for years now, so why should we feel bad about them going under now?
3. Like in other countries that have single payer the insurance companies could still offer up grades. Like instead of ward up grade to private room, But nothing that is a life or death situation.
That have already proven they cannot be trusted when it comes to money. Life is discounted everytime!
It is way past time that they start paying for the problems they have helped cause.
republicanism is a mental illness!
They don't even give us a chance to choose between whiskey or biting down on a bullet before amputation.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
If you can't pull yourself up from your bootstraps to make your insurance premium then you should just roll up into a ball and pass away quietly so that the real Americans can step up.
.
It could mean the end of government corruption, under the table deals, and unjustified corporate profits! Oh the HORROR! Think of the children!!
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
Throw all the lifers out!!!!!!!!!!
Blunt, by the insurance industry and Big Pharma. He is either a huge liar, or just plain dumb. Gupta is a corporate shill taking advantage of the Hippocratic Oath he obviously no longer feels compelled to honor. Sanchez was sufficiently disected at an earlier date.
It's complete bullshit.
Insurance companies will continue to provide 'above and beyond' basic coverage.
I love the free-market faith that Blunt has, that somehow, magically, the exact kind of "choice" and "competition" that Blunt wants will prodice precisely the conditions we want... because we all know that, unlike what's come before, for some reason, the insurance companies will all decide to play nice, and won't undercut or ignore regulations while bribing Congress not to notice... why would they? That's never worked in the past!
What a joke. CNN: the Corporate News Network.
Guppy and the other shills fear oversight into health care. They worry that audits may not allow them to feed at the trough continually. They fear they might not be able to charge 100 bucks for a bandaid or 20 bucks for a Tylenol. There will be no meaningful reform with the greedy still in the picture. Its unconscionable to think they would enact any reform that drives people into the waiting arms of the current batch of greedy health care providers. Thats not change you can believe in for sure. I believe the corruption and graft is far too deeply rooted to turn back now anyways. Its always about the money in the USA.
that would occur if the insurance industry is put out of business. One has to wonder why this is not discussed.
Maybe its just their turn to lose a few jobs. How many millions of middle class folks have had their jobs ripped out from under them in last 10 years ? Nothing like a little shared pain to better the nation as a whole. They can get three part time jobs to not get by also. Maybe if they are lucky ? Chimp Bush will drop in and tell them how " cool" it is that they are working three pissy jobs.
Well, they could always go back to their old jobs, as crooked used car salesmen. (Oops!)
I meant their old jobs as Halliburton/KBR subcontractors in Iraq. (Oops!)
I meant as C-Street "Church" pimps. (Oops!)
Well, maybe it would do them good to join the ranks of the unwashed unemployed, at
least until they realize what all the rest of us are looking for (shovel-ready jobs and a
single-payer health insurance program, (about when hell freezes over, methinks.)
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
-- John F. Kennedy
Gupta = moron
Blunt = moron
How would Gupta feel if he lost his health insurance coverage from CNN and had to hit the open market?
How would Blunt feel if he lost his government sponsored insurance from his government job and had to hit the open market?
Neither of these fools have anything to worry about, so they are completely unqualified to talk about this subject.
Thank God that Gupta did not want consideration for the Surgeon General job. I think Obama's recent appointment to that post is a better selection.
you just explained why blunt didn't respond to my email or phone call
is to ask them "What is your insurance Company? How much do you pay for insurance? What are your co-pays?" "What happens to you if you are unemployed?" "Would you accept a Gov't single payer plan if your insurance was sub-par, or you were unemployed?"
I was very disappointed when Obama tapped him as the SG. The present appointee seems way more qualified than guppy.
prospect of 45 million retiring boomers who's bodies will be falling apart faster then the miracle of modern medicine can keep them patched together.
Obomba campaigned on mandatory insurance, not universal healthcare. People can't seem to be able to differentiate. So, at the end of the day, you have the Repugs supporting the insurance industry, and Obomba wanting to force people to buy insurance, thus supporting the insurance industry. Confused yet? Just because politicians call it healthcare reform, does not make it possible. It's a bit like Ted Kennedy advocating complete overhauls for how many years now? How's that working out again? I'm sure if a political heavyweight like Ted Kennedy were actually serious about helping the common man with healthcare, something would have been done by now.
But hey, did you see how much money Hollyweird's movies are making this year? Wowzers!!
most trusted in America to change the fraudulent and unreal operations of the US government. Duh . . . . .
Smell the change. Oh, this just in. Bank bailout to eventually cost the US taxpayers 24 TRILLION dollars!!! Holy crapola.
No. Obama was elected as the politician that did not smell as bad as the other guy. A common mistake people make is to vote for change and expect politicians to deliver. Politicians don't implement change, people that elect them are the ones who have to push through the change they want. Politicians are there to cut the ribbons at the signing. Most people go to the polls, vote, and sit on their asses for the next 4 years.
He promised to restore the constitution, end the wars, and return prosperity, too.
He hasn't and won't do any of that shit either.
So why can't we complain that he didn't try for more, that he failed to rise to the occasion, that he's just another fucking gutless shill for the Bosses...
I knew he was, and I've said so repeatedly. But that I am not surprised does NOT mean that I am not pissed off!
or Sarah Palin will be elected President in 2012.
if that would happen which it will not, she would quit within a month / or week.
And I've been to your website and read all your blogs. Keep on screamin!!!
too bad the boomers will have pre existing conditions, like being born.
Same old endless repetition of the same, tired, utterly false, amply disproven myths: public insurance is bad because it isn't "competitive".
If competition is so great, how come the USA has the most expensive, conditional, high-overhead, bureaucratized, inefficient, inaccessible medical insurance in the industrialized world??
Here's why (and for some insane reason, this is NEVER discussed): because the economics of medical care are FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT from that of almost any other good or service.
In almost any other business, new products and services are adopted because they provide greater utility at lower cost. That's just Capitalism 101 - build a better mousetrap, etc.
This is NOT the case with new medical procedures, drugs and therapies. These (usually) ADD to the cost of care. Medicine tends to become MORE EXPENSIVE as research and development progresses.
Much medical research is conducted by non-profit, public entities - the government, NIH, universities, research institutes, etc. - unlike any other industry. Medical innovation is for the most part a SCIENTIFIC endeavor, not simply a quest for profit. Pharmaceutical industry research is a for-profit subset of this larger, scientific quest to improve human life and relieve suffering. Whether public or private, the new cures that medical research creates are COSTS to private insurers - that reduce the potential for profit.
Nobody in their right minds buys life-saving medical procedures on the basis of price (If you had a brain tumor, would you shop around for the cheapest neurosurgeon to have it removed? Duh.) Doctors aren't allowed to compete on the basis of price anyway - this would be a violation of professional ethics.
All this means that the mechanisms of the market (the profit motive, cost control, the private quest for market share) DO NOT serve to restrain the cost of medical care. Markets DO NOT make medicine more efficient, other than in ancillary areas like when hospitals contract to buy bedpans and catering from the lowest bidder.
Private medical insurers can't control medical costs. In order to make a profit, they have to deny care or slap on fees wherever possible.
ONLY LARGE, PUBLIC INSURERS HAVE THE ABILITY TO DICTATE AND RESTRAIN FEES AND COSTS. This is so basic. It has been proven over and over again in every country with public health insurance. Yet the economics of health care is a giant blind spot in the American health care debate. No one wants to acknowledge the fact that capitalism is like any other human invention - it's flawed and doesn't apply in all areas of life.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't recall seeing anything in the Constitution which states that protecting the insurance industry's interests is a function of government. It's the free market baby! Compete or disappear!
If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders.
George Carlin
the US Constitution was wholly a fraud, as well as Madison, Jefferson, Hamilton and the rest.
will be tantamount to the corpoRat ass-raping the average citizen.
That's the only thing I can guarantee would emerge from their colloquy. Blunt is a sheer, class-a, flying-monkey shitwhistle. Gupta is a shill for power.
what are the bets that when something is actually passed by these elite snobby politicians, that the bill is laden with porkulus, and will be the size of a complete set of encyclopedia Brittanica, needing a lawyer to interpret any of it???
brudda...
and Obama will be so desperate to have a bill, ANY BILL, he'll sign any piece of shit that gets to his desk...
to the new improved F22 funding, courtesy of some kind of attachement to this bill.
well-stated, dude
your name's Lebowski, Lebowski... and your wife is Bunny
Aren't they both actually admitting that the govt. plan would be better than any insurance company's plan and therefore insurance companies would actually have to try harder and be much more competitive than they are now? How would that be a bad thing? I thought competition was what it was all about in our country.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
get to you. The "public option" is complete crap.
So the public option will be so cost effective and attractive to customers that it will drive private insurance out of business, and at the same time it will be an inefficient government program that stands between patients and their doctors. Is that about right?
Yep, that's how it sounds to me. It'll be so bad that we'll love it. It'll be so good the insurance companies will hate it.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
As an observer of the US debate there are several issues i find confusing. The republicans say anyone can get care at an emergency room and the people with insurance or the government absorb the cost. And we know you currently pay more than any other country for healthcare. So why the huge cost?
I see republican ads depicting our Canadian system as defective and it does have problems. I was specking with a doctor about waiting times the other day and she said there's a small segment of people who abuse the system. They come into the ER three or four times a week and the first thing they want to know is what's for lunch. And if they don't have a way home they get a free taxi chit.
But if you go into a Canadian ER the first thing that happens is triage and if you need immediate help you get it. We have world class care in our small city with medical schools and hospitals conducting reseach in various fields. Between my two elderly parents they had a triple bypass, four heart attacks, with a single 32 day stay in Intensive Care with a nurse bedside 24/7. And there were lots of follow up appointments, tests etc. I have two children and had the normal trips to the children's hospital and doctor's appointments.
Never once through all this has the subject of money come up. It is never a consideration if you want to change jobs, get laid off etc. So don't believe the bull you hear about our system... pretty much everyone I know is quite happy with it. Can you say that about your circle of friends?
"The republicans say anyone can get care at an emergency room and the people with insurance or the government absorb the cost. "
Recently I suffered from a condition which would have been so much less painful if I had gotten immediate treatment. However, my doctor was unavailable, and the local ER wanted the $150.00 co-pay up front, no if's and's or but's. Needless to say, I didn't happen to have 150 bucks on me, so I had to wait over the weekend until I could contact my doctor. Ah there's nothing like having a free market healthcare system!
If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders.
George Carlin
at a lab at one local hospital, I noticed a sign on the wall behind the receptionist that said, "There is no care available in this facility for pregnant women."
Oh that's just lovely! Must be more of that culture of life stuff the "pro-lifers" (or perhaps, more precisely, pro-fetus)are always babbling about.
If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders.
George Carlin
.
Oh, yes, anyone can walk into an emergency room and get care. No problem!
Of course, that care in an emergency room is considerably more expensive than the same care would be if you were able to walk into a doctor's office.
And while, in theory, the people with insurance are paying to cover that ER visit, or the government absorbs it, what actually happens is the patient is badgered 40 ways to Sunday over the debt, sometimes literally for years, even while the hospital is writing it off on their taxes.
Oh, and then there's my other favorite part - the person with no insurance is probably going to be charged far more for their care than the person with insurance.
A co-worker and I had the same procedure done. She did not have insurance (she was a stay-at-home mom at the time), I had insurance. She was billed almost $25K for her surgery and 2 days in the hospital. My insurance company was billed $5K for the surgery and 2 days in the hospital (and I had to pay half of that, but don't get me started).
There is NO good reason why the same surgery should cost such different amounts.
They call it Healthcare Reform -- but it should really be called Insurance Reform.
But wait, people wouldn't get all emotional about Insurance Reform, would they. Joe Sixpack might even think it was a good idea.
There is no healthcare crisis. It is an Insurance crisis, always has been.
who have fallen prey to this economy could have their slates wiped clean, and be given a fresh influx of cash to start over, instead of feeding the monsters that created the mess in the first place?
and lately the Obamanistas, have shoveled at the big banksters, they could have done just that, more or less.
But that wouldn't have achieved the purpose of the De/Recession, which is ALWAYS to recapture property owned by the elites from the proles to wh9ome they "sold" it, and to whom they will "sell" it again...
End the FED and start over with Greenbacks!
slates wiped clean, and can start over just like Bush, Cheney, and Partners.
Insurance Companies can still exist...they just have to stop gauging customers.
they must re-charter as non-profit, public utilities.
Cars, homes, lives, and so on. Just not health care.
Let us recall that Obama was about to appoint Gupta to be Surgeon General!
What was he thinking?
What a chump.
*
"The greatest tyranny is censoring information in order to be better able to control people." - Cristina Saralegui
...and the talking heads are all on the take. They will papercut any bill to death, and what will end up happening is the general public will be FORCED to buy insurance from the industry. The industry will sadly come out better than they were before "reform". Sanjay is a shill!
Blunt said: "An example of maximum choices for people would be Medicare Part D, where everybody every year gets to look at their provider and decide if they still like that provider or not."
Beneficiaries can shop for a plan every fall during the six-week open enrollment period, but after they choose a plan, they are locked into it for the year.
HOWEVER, plans can randomly change their prices during the year, engaging in "bait and switch" tactics. Sometimes, plan holders prices would increase a few dollars here and few dollars there. BUT sometimes the plans would increase $600 or $700 dollars.
Consumer Reports analyzed a plan period (December 2007 and January 2008) and found that seventy-five percent of Part D drug plans in California, New York, Illinois, Florida and Texas raised prices on ramipril, which is marketed as Altace; atorvastatin calcium, which is marketed as Lipitor; Zoloft (i.e., sertraline hydrochloride); nifedipine extended-release 30-mg tabs; and celecoxib, which is marketed as Celebrex, between December and January. Combined prices for these medications increased by an average of $369, according to the analysis. One in six plans increased prices on the five drugs by $500. Twenty-five percent of the plans, meanwhile, decreased their prices for these drugs during the same one-month period.
Interesting how many of the drugs listed are the ones we see advertised on TV throughout the day.
The reason I ask is that I refuse to buy drug coverage, and I pay cash. It's that old hippie belief that if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem. I use ramipril. I pay $40.79 a month. There is a warning out on this drug, too. I would like to know what it costs someone on Med. Pt. D. Do you know?
I don't know. Drugs are similar to other goods that we purchase, and pharmacies compete with one another. Therefore, it makes sense to compare prices among pharmacies.
I'll let you know what I find.
16 cents per pill to $1.58 per pill through mail order companies. Absolutely nothing about where the pills come from, of course. I am guessing that if one is using Med. Pt. D, the vendors will pay 16 cents per pill. In the donut hole, a real person will pay $1.58 per pill. Something is amiss here. I have to research and think about this more.
16 cents per pill to $1.58 per pill through mail order companies. Absolutely nothing about where the pills come from, of course. I am guessing that if one is using Med. Pt. D, the vendors will pay 16 cents per pill. In the donut hole, a real person will pay $1.58 per pill. Something is amiss here. I have to research and think about this more.
I tried to call around to compare prices before having a prescription filled, and couldn't get anyone to actually give me a price. Seems you have to actually try to fill the prescription, then they'll run it through their handy-dandy computer and tell you how much it costs depending on your insurance, or lack thereof. There's apparently not really any such thing as an actual price.
I wonder if they would have wept for Al Capone when the government moved to end the alcohol prohibition...
ourselves is ludicrous. Of course when most American's blood tests come back showing traces of over 100 industrial chemical, toxins, and pollutants . . . what a racket for the "Health Care Industry".
Health Care, Health Insurance, & Pharma
3. Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America: $6,910,000
6. Pfizer, Inc: $6,140,000
12. American Medical Association: $4,240,000
18. American Hospital Association: $3,580,000
19. Eli Lilly and Company: $3,440,000
37. America's Health Insurance Plans, Inc: $2,030,000
39. CVS Caremark Inc: $2,005,000
47. Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association: $1,800,000
49. GlaxoSmithKline: $1,780,000
63. Merck & Co: $1,500,000
65. United Health Group, Inc: $1,500,000
69. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. Inc: $1,460,000
76. Novartis: $1,347,134
87. Abbott Laboratories: $1,260,000
89. Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP: $1,250,000
92. Medtronic, Inc: $1,238,000
Who's gonna win this one?
the dollar number that goes to healthcare providers from the insurance industry? I mean, they must get paid decent. Recent grads here in Canuckistan are bribed down there constantly for the allure of the $$$'s.
?
day.
unreal. Just turn to "this is CNN...the most trusted news source" and listen to them introduce their unbiased healthcare debate, right after these messages from Big Pharma!!! Un-believe-able is an understatement.
puts you in a select group, and very few of those viewers will catch the irony of that sponsorship. I'm afraid that we citizens are going to get exactly what we deserve . . again.
Now back to "America's Got Talent!"
Ya, I wonder if there is any conflict between the "Situation Room" show and their employer. Are they all together in what situations they cover? Does the situation control the narrative, or do the CNN executives?
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
Reminds me of horseshoe-makers in the early 20th century. Same thing -- "What WILL we do without our income????" Another one I love are cigarette manufacturers. "Waaaaaa! You are trying to take away my livelihood!"
Get real. This country has known for decades that health care needed to be reformed. Rather than either reform it, or get a new occupation, whiners did nothing (except raise rates -- some fix!) and now whine about their jobs. Same with cigarettes and lung cancer.
What is WRONG with America? Not only the whiners, but those who actually believe them?
"Waaaaaa! You are trying to take away my livelihood!"
All I want to do is make$$$$ and kill you.
Get off my livelihood.
The blogosphere should acknowledge what most of its diarists and readers already know, that CNN is no better than Fox, just a bit less screaming. Their "interviews" are nothing more than thinly veiled frame jobs for corporate interests, and the percentage of corporatist or right wing guests is far greater than any other group.
CNN: Fox without the screaming.
so who is doing the framing then - is it the faceless program producer-directors? I can see how the framing is a cooperative effort to a large extent, like a leaderless conspiracy, but the framing must emanate from the writers and producers. why don't we see their names on the screen? you know, for the MSMs "full disclosure" obligation.
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
animal shows. That's all it takes to distinguish them from Fox. Oh, and the no screaming thing.
Roy Blunt is a pocket-sized weasel, shyster, and total sleezebag. Here is Missouri we've put up with him and his tiny little foreflusher of a son for too long. If Roy is for it, we should all check our wallets.
Of course, these are merely my opinions...Mine and most other sane Missouri voters.
sounds like a good campaign slogan for the primaries
Here's the MSM punditry pushing for "bipartisanship", or meeting in the middle on the health care debate. I ask, what is the middle?
--Is the middle in terms of amount of money being poured into the pockets of politicians? Corporate America when that every time.
--Is it the middle in terms of ideology of our elected politicians? We are still fighting 2 preemptive wars, we bailed out a Wall Street that swindled billions, and we watch our own Senate attack a Hispanic, female nominee for following precedent and speaking strongly FOR diversity, and we watch member of the Democratic party consistently side with corporate interests time and time again. I'd say the ideological center of our elected leaders is just to the right of Dwight Esienhower, A Republican President.
-When you articulate for the middle as a proposition of good faith compromise on issues which most take into account morality and justice, than you are fighting a lost cause. If that approach was taken in civil rights and gender equality we'd still be living in the dark ages.
--The status quo MSM will always be on the side of "compromise" and "meeting in the middle" because corporate interests want to create the facade of balance and fairness, while at the same time they are relentlessly pursuing their bottom line--the $.
Gupta has always been, and will always be a shrill fraud. Period.
An elephant in the room with thousands of mice?
Elephants freak out when they see a mouse (I think the mythbusters - as unscientific as they are - gave some evidence to this).
The elephant would be right to be concerned as these mice seem to have mind control...
...I've been following the US health care debate with growing puzzlement. My parents were poor, and managed to raise 4 boys on one salary; luckily for them, there was universal health care- I broke my left clavicle 5 times as a kid, I got a branch stuck in my thigh that needed removal :) and appendicitis, plus a piece of metal in the left eye that almost pierced it. And that was just my trips to the hospital. Now I don't complain when they take away 30% off my paycheck even though I have'nt seen a doctor in 15 years, because I know I'm helping other families make it. I managed to become an artist, even though my father was a poor mechanic. Two of my brothers are also in an art related job, and managed to outgrow our previous social bracket. I thought salaries were much higher in the US, so with the larger active population, it should be easy to finance some sort of universal health care program through a relatively small tax.
For example, I was making 2932.88 last september(looking at an old pay stub) for two weeks work. On this, I had to pay 389.28$ in federal taxes, and 458.43$ in provincial taxes. Plus 13.20$ for RQAP(parental insurance -http://www.rqap.gouv.qc.ca/a_propos_regime/information_generale/index_en.asp) and a few other payments for misc stuff. I end up with a net pay of 2041.63 for two weeks of work, still plenty enough to pay the bills, food, fuel and put some on he side for security.
My wife has to see a specialist every week for a muscular problem, it costs nothing; one hospital had a wait time of a year, but we found another one near our home where it was only 3 weeks. At some point, you have to be willing to have a social project, where you accept to sacrifice some money(it's only money, it doesn't have any real value, not like another person's life), even though you might not be a direct user of the service.
You're obviously not an American or you would never have written something like this:
You see, we Americans don't actually value a person's life unless it is still in the womb, is rich, or is an elected official. All other lives are expendable and without intrinsic value. That's why we're the greatest country in the history of the universe.
I can understand money being important when you're poor, thinking about the next meal. But all of those who make more than 100000$, I mean, they shouldn't care about 10-20$(even 100$) taken from a paycheck. It's peanuts money. I make less than that, manage to pay a mortgage for a house, bought a used car (paid for in full) even paid for a 300$ visit to the vet for a stray cat that wandered on my property and who was starving himself to death trying to survive on birds and squirrels- while trying to find his/her owner. Maybe life is more expensive in the US, I don't know, but it would probably be way cheaper if you had universal health-care.
First these people who are too poor and lazy to even own bootstraps, expect those of us who do own them to pay extra taxes for them. First, it's $1, then $1.50, then $1.75. Some of the bootstrap owners are so greedy, they cannot bear the thought that someone else will get even one penny of their money. We have to live with these freaks. The most many of them will do is participate in the US Postal Services food drive in December by cleaning out from their pantries the old canned goods that they regret ever buying and donating them to the losers. So altruistic. Makes them feel real Christian-like.
I love it that you love kitties. Me too.
who make decent money but are denied health insurance coverage because of preexisting conditions on to give their (my) take.
Nobody is representing my position and I'm getting increasingly pissed off about it. I'm sick of yelling at the TV - somebody let me on to tell my story and refute this hot air BS from these idiots.
We must have two entirely different realities going on simultaneously here. These wind bags and their scare tactics with misinformation are enough to make you want to jump off a cliff if and when this passes Congress and gets signed into law by President Obama.
Nobody bothers to confront them on anything with facts. I guess these networks are just a voice box for the politicians to come on and spin their message. Sad day.
...of how bad Obama is at appointing even minimally adequate people to fill his administration. What made Obama ever consider Gupta as the Surgeon General is a mystery, but it ought to be a mystery that worries progressives deeply.
As always, the Republican states without evidence that the US health care system is the best in the world. Neither the moderator nor Rangel bother to question the basis for such a transparently false claim.
I think we all need to pause for a moment of silence to remember the hundreds of thousands (millions?) of Brits who are dying at this moment because they have universal health care. I'm assuming, based on the "fact" that Brits can't get care and when they do it's probably too late, that the entire country will be depopulated within a few years. Great Britain: RIP.
Fortunately, Rangel and Hatch seem to be doing just fine with their tax payer provided health care.
Medicare Act of 2003
- it provides a subsidy for large employers to discourage them from eliminating private prescription coverage to retired workers (a key AARP goal; the 2005 Annual Report for IBM estimates that company will receive a $400 million subsidy during the six-year period beginning in 2006)
- it prohibits the Federal government from negotiating discounts with drug companies
One month later, the ten-year cost estimate was boosted to $534 billion, up more than $100 billion over the figure presented by the Bush administration during Congressional debate. The inaccurate figure helped secure support from fiscally conservative Republicans who had promised to vote against the bill if it cost more than $400 billion. It was reported that an administration official, Thomas A. Scully, had concealed the higher estimate and threatened to fire Medicare Chief Actuary Richard Foster if he revealed it. By early 2005, the White House Budget had increased the 10-year estimate to $1.2 trillion. - Sourced from Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_Prescri...
Dumping money without cost containment was the biggest issue. FDA never cracked down to determine effective drugs. Dementia medication, Zyprexa, was actually ineffective while Eli Lilly pocketed $4.7 Billion for 2008 alone.
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2009/06... - Dementia
Then there was a Scientific American article mentioning, "Journal of the National Cancer Institute takes a look at drugs like Erbitux, a supplemental drug for the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer. Erbitux costs about $80,000 for 18 weeks of treatment, they write, while only prolonging life by an average of 1.2 months. The drug also carries side effects." It's stupidity to be wasteful for results like those. It would be more intelligent and cost containing to do preventive health care like the UK does. Where doctors have incentives to have people end their smocking addiction. I wish when I was young that taxes for tobacco made it $7(New York) - $15 (Australia) per pack.. and this is coming from a current smoker trying to kick the habit of 18 years.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/60-sec...
AARP is a for-profit organization, which primarily tries to sell insurance (all kinds). They have only that obligation, under the law, to make a profit for their shareholders. They charge you, if you decide to join them, a membership fee each year to receive their insurance propaganda. And many thought they were a lobbying group dedicated to representing senior citizens. Pshaw.
The elephant in the room metaphor is kinda funny if you think about it for a moment....What political party's mascot is a satanic(the five-point stars were turned upside-down in 2000 or 2001) elephant? This elephant in the room has been crushing all of us little mice since their inception.....These people and their greed is good mantra need to go away.....forever
certainly
not
news.
Some stuff you can't make up!
than a few hundred top execs being out of a job under a socialized system.
BTW, most of the clerical positions from the HMOs would be easily absorbed into a single payer non-profit system which still requires lots of paperwork/clerical staff. So overall the job losses from the health management crowd would be mostly on the upper echelons of those corporations.
Basically the USA is saying, by our actions, that we consider the profit entitlement of a few corporations somehow overruling of the common good regarding our health.
We are a f*cked up society, plain and simple. The fact that Obama was considering this Gupta character to bee deeming of the Surgeon General office is quite disappointing. Though he seems to have been able to come through with the actual nominee, so here is to hoping this marks a turn around for him since it is clear that no matter how much appeasing he does, he is going to be demonized by the right.
The party who passes a meaningful reform of health care, which allows Americans to have access to proper care will literally be rewarded with voter loyalty for at least one generation. No amount of bucks from the HMOs can buy that, do you hear you numbnut Dems?
If I was him, I would be screwing with many people like Gupta.
I first had that knee-jerk reaction as well when he offered Judd Gregg the Commerce position...but I know what "that one" was doing.....he is/was playing pure politics with the lunatics on the right....he appoints(or offers appointments) to people he knew would flat-out rebel against even being offered the opportunity to be in a "terrorist "pallin' around" with socialist non-US citizen communist wealth-spreader"..and then says to the psychotic "bi-partisan-minded" fools; " I extended the olive branch...they pissed on it..."
Now if he would only listen to Krugman and others.... ;)
As a MO native I've gotten to watch this POS operate for years at all levels of government. He probably hasn't collected a paycheck from his beloved private sector in his life. His whole smarmy family has been feeding at the public trough forever. There's noone more bought and paid for than this weasel, period.
left to join his brother's lobbying firm in KC. POS and corporate whores seem complimentary to me. I've lived in MO my entire life, but that doesn't prevent me from being embarassed about what a backwater it is. It just makes me sad..
.
R E M E M B E R:
Gupta gets paid to shill for PROFIT driven Insurance...
... Nuff said!
.
Starve the WAR Beast...
... Save the World.
;)
Study the symptoms not the virus...
What are the chances that Sanjay Gupta would have chosen to get a medical degree, if it provided him a modest middle class life? I very much doubt he would have. Notice I didn't refer to him as a doctor? That's because Mr Gupta's priority is to be as wealthy as possible. In his comments I hear nothing about him caring about the health and recovery of the sick and dying. His comments focus on the maximum wealth possible for him, and his friends. If I was in dire need of medical treatment, and Mr Gupta was the only one available to help, I would refuse to be treated by that greedy capitalist bastard. Provided the opportunity I would also call him a greedy bastard capitalist pig to his face.
Given that fact... what can it tell us? Now at the "risk" of being wrong... Insurance is profitable or less so depending on their analysis of their [Risk exposure] no?
So purely from an insurance point of view, is it apples to apples or apples to oranges... my review of the following facts?
Could someone tell me if this is irrelevant to the health-care issue before us or what exactly it does reveal other then some deep pockets.
Opinions please... [Self-insured employer list],
Find Self-Insured Employers (Is it a public/private option) :-/
→[ http://www.lni.wa.gov/ClaimsIns/Insurance/Sel... ]
Do they just want to be in charge of what they do and not afford us the same right? pun intended Or is the only correlation that can be extracted... the word insurance? Do the self insured big-shots hate insurance companies to? It's like a "Rubik's Cube" that I never had the patience to solve. :)
Study the symptoms not the virus...
I fail to see the problem in that. Just once I'd like for one of these jack-holes to show me the problem in that. I have my suspicions of course, but really, where is the problem in the demise of the private health insurance industry?
Why should I give two shits about Aetna (my POS insurer) when a damn terrorist at Guantanamo gets better health care than me? Hell if I get diagnosed with a terminal illness, I'm probably better off trying to blow up a Federal building with a Koran in my hand than relying on Aetna. If anything I'm sure some jackhole at Aetna would be getting a raise for arguing that my poor genetics were a pre-existing condition, ah goddamnit this shit just makes me so mad...
Comments are closed on this entry