Raising money to air an anti-special-interest ad with Lessig and Olbermann
Adam Green sez, "On Friday, Lawrence Lessig's reform group Change Congress released a new ad calling out "Blue Dog" Rep. Mike Ross (D-Arkansas) for siding with his special-interest contributors over his constituents on the issue of health care. The ad features an extended cameo by Keith Olbermann -- and is narrated by Lessig. Rather unique. Within hours, it was featured by ABC, NBC, Politico, Huffington Post, and Rachel Maddow. Lessig's group is asking folks to chip in to air the ad on Arkansas TV."
Help us get this ad on the air in Arkansas! (Thanks, Adam!)(
the latest
latest episodes
Hell yes! Give them money now!
For this reason, campaign contributions from anything other than private citizens should be illegal. And even those should be heavily capped to prevent the wealthy from having more influence than the less well off.
To American readers: No, my suggestion is not socialism, it's what Democracy looks like when its not sold to the highest bidder.
Umm, who the hell is Mike Ross? Why is this ad not targeted at the vastly more important Max Baucus (D-MT)? I do hope there's another in the pipe for that particular shill.
Snip from the recent must read by Matt Taibbi "Sick and Wrong":
Do yourself a favour and read this article in full, it's well worth the time. Then give money to Lessig so he can target the heart of the problem - Baucus.
1) Blue Dog--or just Southern--Democrats are THE reason that democrats hold congress. Blue dogs come from districts that Pelosi wouldn't be safe to visit. They represent an important, and increasingly powerful, fiscal check on the more expensive parts of the Democratic party. And, I wouldn't be the first to comment that the Blue Dog platform is essentially the Obama platform.
That is, you don't need to claim Ross is being bought off. He is one of many centrist Democrats who are working to keep the costs of healthcare reforms down. The CBO estimates that the House version of the bill adds $1 trillion to the deficit, while the Baucus plan reduces it. Ross believes his position is right, and his constituents believe it, too.
2) Ross is not opposing health care reform, he is opposing the public option. And, he's in the House, which is the junior of the two houses and is more or less irrelevant in terms of the real political debates here.
3) Once again, Cory, if your only source is MSNBC you can be damn sure it doesn't play in Omaha. Lessig makes an interesting threat to take down Ross if he doesn't go along with Pelosi: as though Arkansas were San Francisco, and Ross had been voted in by some kind of mistake. To the contrary, Arkansas has long been a model for fiscally conservative democrats--that's why we've had a major contender in every presidential election for 25 years. I'm not sure who this commercial is meant to play for.
@3 Why isn't it targeting Baucus? Because it's incredibly stupid to spend your limited resources against a guy that won't come up for reelection until 2014.
@ #4
1) Health Insurance lobby gives over $921,000.00 to Ross
2) Ross is not opposing health care reform, he is opposing the public option.
3) Profit
The people in need of single payer health care the most, are suffering from incurable Stockholm Syndrome.
There is only one word for anyone who has expensive and limited, or no health care or is being denied for often bogus pre-existing conditions yet still swallows the insurance company and Faux News/Glenn Beck party line, SUCKERS.
I'm too poor to donate more than a few dollars, but we will.
New Study Finds 45,000 Uninsured Die Every Year
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/9/18/as_baucus_unveils_health_plan_absent
Cory - dude, all you need to do is look at the Massachuetts Health Care plan to see a diaster in action with uncontrolled costs, excessive taxes and the Law of Unintended Consequences with respect to "universal" health care.
Considering that the real problem is the 16 or so million people that are actually uninsured, a trillion over ten years seems a little excessive.
Whoever opposes a public option is a murderer.
I just don't want all these people to die.
Is that wrong? :'(
I don't actually disagree, my head shaking is just for a different reason. I don't find it a travesty that corporations want to spend money to influence the government. I find it a travesty that we need to stop them. If you need to impose rules so that someone can't shout louder than the other guy because whoever is the loudest wins, well, it says more about the quality of the voting public than it does corporations doing the buying.
In an ideal world, anyone would be free to spend as much money trying to spread an idea as they wanted, but an informed and intelligent populace would merrily make that money spent a waste if the idea was a waste. It is too bad that people are such gullible suckers to the point where we need to be 'fair' in terms of who can speak for how long because otherwise the guy with the most shiny sparklers wins.
I am not saying that corporations shouldn't be limited in their political spending, I am saying it is too bad people suck so much that you need to limit them in the first place.
Only 8% of Ross's financing came from health care companies, and he has run essentially unoppo0sed in the previous two elections. Isn't it possible that he just disagress with you?
is anyone else disturbed by the fact that the central piece of this ad is a news anchor? We all know neither MSNBC or Fox are objective and unbiased anymore - but now the newstainment is part of political ads too? Give me the willies.
@buddy66
You bring up an interesting moral point. If someone dies because of a failure to act, is that the moral equivalent of murder?
Many of the people opposed to the public option argue that it will reduce the quality of healthcare, and result in the deaths of people victim of that reduced quality. Are these people murderers as well, assuming they are sincere, if misguided?
just asking...
(Before anyone jumps down my throat, I've been if favor of a single payer system since the mid 1970s. I've just never thought of those who oppose it as murderers.)
@LakeLady, what you're seeing is a clip of Maddow talking about the ad, not the ad itself. Don't get your knickers in a twist.
For the actual Ad:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kr_vsQQe08
"Blue dogs come from districts that Pelosi wouldn't be safe to visit."
Now there's something to be proud of. [/sarcasm]
But seriously, people, don't equate opposition to the public option with murder. That's just ignorant hyperbole.
Lessig is good at many things. Narration is not one of them. I'll donate money, but please, hire a narrator!
@16:
Interesting you should bring up hyperbole.
Hmmm. Setting up a special interest group that intends to air and advert that is anti-special-interest groups. Not sure, is this not an oxymoron?
Cowcide, DC:
My point is, Lessig has the 'fly-over country' perspective that moderate democrats will someday grow up to be liberal democrats. If Ross opposes liberal democrats it must be because he's corrupt.
Ross and others do not support the House/Pelosi plan because it adds to the deficit where reform is supposed to make things cheaper. As for where Pelosi is welcome, my living room would not be included, because I believe she has hijacked the party and unwisely insisted on a bill that never had a chance of passing.
My broader point is that this commercial is designed to play for ZOMG liberals, a constituency that doesn't exist in Arkansas. Even if it were to succeed at taking down Ross in a primary, he would promptly be replaced by a Republican.
Before you give up your money, you should be convinced that this commercial will change the minds of centrists.
@7 Foetusnail: I've never got why those that seem most vocal against public healthcare are the ones who are going to benefit most (well, except moronic middle-class "not with my money" types.)
It's a real shame that the public are so thoroughly duped on this matter.. public healthcare, true universal healthcare, is something I consider a most basic civil right. And part of the benefits in living in a well-founded and run democracy.
I really hope Obama can get that shit together, but it won't surprise me if he's shouted down by... well special interests and duped imbeciles.
Rindan: That was heartwarmingly naive.
Thanks for reminding me that things - people - should (and can) be alright.
Why don't you guys work on getting the 17 million who are eligible for Medicaid and Medicare signed up?
Why don't you force the 10 million who can afford to buy insurance and don't to do so?
Why don't you all bond together and form a group that pays for the health care of illegals- and fund it yourselves?
There is no single payer system anywhere in the world that is sound. Not one. They all ration care and the result is that cancer survival is higher in the US than anywhere in the world.
We need true campaign reform. If campaigns are publicly financed (the airwaves are publicly owned after all that should equal free airtime), the rest should fall in line. I know that sounds simplistic but if Congress didn't have to sell their souls to get elected/reelected they wouldn't take money from industry scum.
or,,,
Seeing that 45k people die each year because they have no insurance maybe the same number of lobbyists should have "accidents" each year...
@23:
You're saying that campaigns are the only place where money influences politics?
You could reform the system all you want: congress still influences trillions of dollars. It's always gonna be about money. And, if you're a dyed-in-the-wool capitalist, that's a good thing. At least you can understand (and share) the motivation of money.
quickly, my comment was based on watching the actual ad on youtube, not the clip posted here. And apparently I'm the only one concerned with a "news anchor" being featured in a political ad.
People who are against a public option are either murderers (@9) or dupes (@21)? And all this time, I thought it was the conservatives who had no aptitude for nuance.
@#20, TEUFELSDROCH,
You have a rather optimistic view of the intentions of Rep. Ross. Yes, it is possible that Rep. Ross opposes a health care bill that includes a public option because of his commitment to fiscal responsibility. However, it is equally likely that he opposes such legislation because the health insurance industry has given him lots of money and he wants more (or wants to keep funds away from his opponent/s) for his re-election campaign next year.
Once you search his legislative voting record and note that for the past eight years (Ross and Bush Jr. were elected the same year) Ross has voted repeatedly for bills that hugely inflate the deficit, his recent embrace of fiscal conservatism seems pretty dubious.
So yeah, maybe he just wants to do what he thinks is the right thing. OR, maybe he's a fucking crook.
@28 David:
Ross et al. forced the democrats to shrink government subsidies for healthcare, and to loosen the mandate for small businesses to offer healthcare. Neither are in the interest of insurance companies; both are attempts to limit the size of government while still imposing new regulations.
I fail to see how this puts him in the pocket of insurance companies. Do you have evidence of your claim, beyond the propaganda presented here?
As Obama said, "I'm especially grateful that so many members, including some Blue Dogs on the Energy and Commerce Committee, are working so hard to find common ground. Those efforts are extraordinarily constructive in strengthening this legislation and bringing down its cost."
Ross -WAS- an early powerful opponent of the public option, which is now dead. As liberals go through the stages of loss, they should avoid eating their own.
How many people will die per year in a system with a public option? Why does everyone assume that with a public option "poof" 45,000 per year are saved? The UK has a public system, yet their death rate is higher than the US.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_death_rate
My point is that making this a public system doesn't automatically save lives. The focus should be on improving the quality of care.
I'm pretty sure I'm not a dupe, so I must be a murderer.
Or, I'm someone who takes a longer view of things. The "public option" will sooner or later become the only option. Obama himself is on record as stating this is his intent, and it's not hard to see that there can be no level playing field between a government enterprise and private competitors, when the government sets the game rules and can change them at will.
So, what we would end up with, by stealth, is the "single payer" system so many here say they want.
And how could any fair-minded person object? Well, consider the track record this government has for large-scale murder, and wholesale violations of basic human rights. To the power elite we are nothing more than livestock, really, to be fed, managed, and culled or slaughtered as the need arises. Clamoring for single-payer is like wanting to join an HMO run by Davros.
And apparently I'm the only one concerned with a "news anchor" being featured in a political ad.
I'm more concerned that we describe a political commentator as a news anchor. He's just as much a news anchor as Jon Stewart.
They all ration care and the result is that cancer survival is higher in the US than anywhere in the world.
Death from cancer by country
UK - 253.5 deaths per 100,000 people
US - 321.9 deaths per 100,000 people
Isn't 321 still more than 253? Is this the new new math that I keep hearing about?
@34 antonius
I'm EVEN MORE concerned when we describe a sports announcer as a news anchor. When we demand the same boom-smack play-by-play of politics as we do of football, something's wrong.
When looking and sounding good on television is your SOLE qualification, something's wrong.
For all that, the argument could be made that we are in a golden age of political commentary, with Stephanopoulos, Zakaria, Friedman, Brooks, etc hitting the ball out of the park every week.
#29 TEUFELSDROCH
Yes, we must watch against boings boing's long standing use of propaganda because they get a bunch of money funneled to them by the... uh... evil pro-people lobby... or something...
Ross has stated that he apposes any public option and is using republican propaganda (a.k.a. insurance lobby) talking points (like calling it "government-run" healthcare) to help deride it and spread fear and misinformation.
Also, please answer this question... why would the insurance lobby funnel nearly 1 million dollars to someone who isn't in their pocket? Let's hear your gander on that one...
And on that note, some interesting previous votes from Ross:
- Voted NO on allowing suing HMOs. [cough]
- Voted NO on small business associations for buying health insurance which would have lowered premiums for small businesses.
" ... A government-run public option is the wrong direction for health reform in this country and I will oppose it in the U.S. Congress ... " - Ross
Sorry, I think Ross has his head up his own ass and/or the asses of the insurance lobbyists based on his words and his actions, not because I'm eating up some liberal "propaganda". Maybe you should check your diet?
#32 POSTED BY ANONYMOUS, SEPTEMBER 20, 2009 9:57 AM
You obviously didn't read a damn thing about the study before trying to dismiss it while using some lame stats that have nothing to do with public systems.
Here's some stats that do:
" ... The Harvard-based researchers found that uninsured, working-age Americans have a 40 percent higher risk of death than their privately insured counterparts, up from a 25 percent excess death rate found in 1993. Deaths associated with lack of health insurance now exceed those caused by many common killers such as kidney disease. ... "
@37:
Propaganda: I do not think it means what you think it means.
Deep breath, mate. Ross opposes the public option, a fact which is now irrelevant because the public option is dead (never lived, if you mean an actual bill with an actual cost and benefits for the consumer).
As for Ross himself, I think an inspection of his background is healthy.
That's not the argument Lessig, and yourself, are making. You are both simply equating opposition to the public option with corruption and lies. That is simply not the case, as the president himself has repeatedly said.
And again, it is immensely frustrating that hard left liberals still don't understand that the public option is dead, long since dead.
The problem with health care insurance is the insurance part. What we need is health care.
Call a spade a spade, and label these people for what they are (I suggest "anti-american plutocrats who make money from human suffering" and "politicans who betray their constituency for money") and ditch the self-defeating special interest meme.
The right wing likes to point out how left wing special interest groups, such as the people who made the commercial I just watched, are holier-than-thou hypocrites who misuse weasel-words like "special interests" in order to demonize their opponents. It's very easy to paint all your opponents as hypocrites and liars when some of them behave in ways that invite such comparisons.
The Nature Conservancy is a special interest group.
Habitat for Humanity is a special interest group.
The Heifer Project is a special interest group.
The EFF is a special interest group, and one that tries very hard to influence legislation to benefit its constituency. I support all four of these, which is why I mention them.
I can't support anything that openly declares itself to be against special interests. It would violate my personal code of ethics, sorry. I am a special interest.
Must go, sorry I cannot stick around for discussion.
@31, 33, ect.
I've always found it interesting that there is so much opposition to the public option. I can only see it as evidence that people don't really understand what it is. Not this is something people didn't know. Nate Silver has covered this before.
The public option is not an attempt to take over the insurance industry. Really. The fact is that in countries with single payer systems (insurance systems which pay for-profit doctors and hospital visits, ie Canada) and those with government administered care (in England the government directly runs hospitals), there are still private insurance companies.
The bill's in congress would create insurance exchange(s) containing a menu of insurance plans for small businesses or mostly self-employed individuals without heathcare. We aren't talking about the poor here, they will get care through an expanded medicaid program. We are talking about folks like me, independent software developers, artists, and entrepreneurs. To help with affordability, people buying onto the exchange would receive tax credits, no matter which plan they pick.
The proposal is that one of these options would be a government-run insurance plan. Its advantages would be a low administrative cost, a large premium base that would allow it to negotiate effectively, no profit siphoning, and some amount of transparency and accountability. It wouldn't receive direct government subsidies apart from an initial seed loan, but would cover claims by charging a sufficient premium. It should be an actor on the market that we know is doing its best to reduce premiums by providing preventive care and reducing heath costs, not by kicking people off. It should be possible for private insurance to make a profit. They should be able to devise ways of integrating care more effectively than the public option, also they should be able to invest their coverage pool more effectively. The public option will simply be an automatic regulation that incentivizes the correct way the insurance industry should reduce liabilities, correcting an obvious market failure. Learn more here.
To me the individual mandate is a much more controversial element. I just don't understand how people with fairly academic and abstract concerns over government takeovers aren't concerned with the choices I will have to make once this passes. If I'm going to be forced to buy insurance, why does that mean I will be forced to give money out of my own pocket and place it into the pockets of insurance executives and investors. Explain to me why I shouldn't have the choice to invest my premiums in a plan I believe has my health and the health of my community as its number one priority? What right do you have to take that choice away from me?
"You obviously didn't read a damn thing about the study before trying to dismiss it while using some lame stats that have nothing to do with public systems."
I did not dismiss anything. I simply said that it is illogical to think that we would magically save 45,000 lives per year by going to a state run 100% coverage health care system. Lifestyle choices, diet, and exercise play a much bigger role in combating deaths.
This isn't fantasy land, there are economic constraints that prevent everyone from having equal access to heath care. Some people will get surgery from an established pro, others from the Dr just out of college, others from the med student on rotation.
I agree that we should do all we can to help those who cannot afford health insurance, but there are other ways than nationalizing or legislating care. Health care != health insurance.
#35
Death rates per capita, which WHO publishes, don't tell the whole story about the quality of health care systems. Some populations are more likely to GET cancer than others, which affects the numbers. A more telling metric is 5-year survival rates for people diagnosed with cancer, but these are harder to find. The Lancet Oncology issued a study (really a survey) of 31 countries in their August 2008 issue. The study is on-line here, but you have to subscribe to get the data.
WebMD has an article summarizing the study which lists the U.S., Japan and France as having the highest survival rates, but doesn't offer supporting details.
For all that, the argument could be made that we are in a golden age of political commentary, with Stephanopoulos, Zakaria, Friedman, Brooks, etc hitting the ball out of the park every week.
Friedman? Thomas fucking Friedman?
This person, folks, cannot be serious.
Some people will get surgery from an established pro, others from the Dr just out of college, others from the med student on rotation.
Obviously you've never had surgery. Medical students don't do surgery. MDs fresh out of medical school don't do surgery. They do residencies in teaching hospitals where they learn from attending physicians. A lucky intern might be allowed to close the patient while a senior doctor guides him through it. They work their way through various levels of assisting and learning until they become fully qualified. Most surgical residencies involve about six years of post-graduate training. And then there are fellowships for many surgical disciplines.
Nice scare tactics though.
@ 39
Shit, Teufelsdroch, you are a bit exhausting. But two things from yer latest dumb piece here.
1: What you refer to as hard left liberals are merely ,like, people slightly left of centre maybe.
What you and other dishonest people try to do is scare people by asociating these sound , fair and humanistic ideas with something that people are afraid of , for example socialism. Newspeak, y´all. If you want a public option it doesnt make you a "hard lef liberal". What is a hard left liberal anyway? An anarchist? Help me?
2 Public option is not dead. An idea can not die, and the public option lives manifestly (?!) in several places in the world, for example the scandinavian countrys and britain and bla bla bla.
Go on fighting for yer public option Americans !!
"Within hours, it was featured by ABC, NBC, Politico, Huffington Post, and Rachel Maddow."
C'mon, this just the progressive version of Glen Beck and Fox promoting town hollerers. Think much of that?
I admire Mr. Lessig regardless.
If they're going to take this guy down they better have a better Dem on deck. Right now they're just aiming to defeat a Democrat.
But does anyone really watch TV in Arkansas? Aren't they all at NASCAR?
@#2 THE HEADLESS RABBIT
Individual contributions are currently capped at ~$2300 per person per candidate. Maybe too large but not millionaire money.
@ #39 POSTED BY TEUFELSDROCH
You dodged my question. But, that's no surprise...
You are now going to try and argue semantics. But, that's no surprise...
As much as it gives you a hard on to have the public option "dead"... we shall see in what form it comes later down the road if we who think health care is a right in this country continue our struggle to make these bricks in the wall accountable one way or another.
Welp, nice chattin' with ya'...
Gee, I hope you don't get stricken' with any diseases and find out your company insurance plan only gives you a co-insurance plan instead of a co-pay and you can't afford the percentage... and die.
"I've been if favor of a single payer system since the mid 1970s. I've just never thought of those who oppose it as murderers."
If one knows that 45,000 people will die unnecessarily because they are uninsured, then how does one who opposes a public option avoid becoming a murderer?
I say *murder most foul* — even though no blood splashes and one's hands are clean, not reeking.
If I engaged in exchanges with anonymous lurkers I would tell one or two of them to go fuck themselves. (not you, anon30)
I am pretty sure he wasn't declaring public health dead across the entire world, nor dead forever in America. He was far more likely to be saying that it is dead this election cycle in the US, and he is probably right. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to do the math. Democrats need 60 votes. They have 59 counting two independents that caucus with them. That means as it stands, they not only need every single democrat and independent to vote in favor of the bill, but they also need at least one Republican.
Now, if the democrats get done banging their heads on the wall for stripping Romney of the ability to appoint temporary senators and managed to get legislation through in Massachusetts to give this politically convenient power back to the governor (who is now a democrat), they would have enough, but only if every single democrat and independent votes in favor of the bill. This is doubtful at best.
When it comes to the next election cycle where they might be able to grab a few more seats, I would be willing to bet that they fail to grab seats and probably lose a few. Maybe next election will be the exception, but having a super majority in the US is generally detrimental to your party's political health.
Honestly, if I were the Dems I would try a totally new tactic. I would rediscover my love of states rights and retool the bill to allow states to do whatever the damn well please and loosen federal control. The US has multiple states with populations larger than many European nations that can easily run their own healthcare program. Have the federal government toss some money at them to try new things.
The idea would be to do the same thing that happened with welfare reform. Open it up on a state level, and then pick the winning ideas that fall out from state experimentation (and avoid the losers). If a state like Massachusetts shows their system to be cheaper and have better out comes, you might actually get a few left leaning Republicans to sign on (Olympia Snow comes to mind, but I am sure there are more).
I just don't think that the Democrats are ever going to get the 60 votes they need unless they have something other than Europe to point to, and I am really doubtful that their good political fortunes can do anything but reverse, though perhaps I don't give Republicans enough credit for their ability to pick stupid brain dead morons incapable to stringing together an English sentence or babbling anything but vague "Hurray USA!" platitude.
#43 POSTED BY ANONYMOUS
Yes, I’m in magical fantasy land... thanks.
Once again, read about the actual study before dismissing it (yet again) by tying it to “magic” and “fantasy”. Face it, if more people got medical care, less people people would die. Can’t we simply agree on that common sense principal? No one at Harvard presenting this study is promoting magic or fantasy... just you.
If people who are sick didn’t avoid the doctor because they can’t afford care, less people would die. Why can’t you understand this? The study found solid cases of preventable deaths.
Here’s some magical pixies floating in fantasy land...
“ ... A freelance cameraman's appendix ruptured and by the time he was admitted to surgery, it was too late. A self-employed mother of two is found dead in bed from undiagnosed heart disease. A 26-year-old aspiring fashion designer collapsed in her bathroom after feeling unusually fatigued for days.
What all three of these people have in common is that they experienced symptoms, but didn't seek care because they were uninsured and they worried about the hospital expense, according to their families. All three died. ... “
There are approximately 45,000 of these fantasy pixie cases per year in fantasy land. I mean... [cough]... it’s not like Harvard Medical School has any good credentials on these kinds of things, right? I’m sure you’ve already found massive flaws in their methodologies, etc. -- please share? I mean, it’s not like they examined government health surveys from more than 9,000 people aged 17 to 64, taken from 1986-1994, and then followed up through 2000 or anything...
By the way, what happened to your lame stats? You dropped them and they have seemed to go up in a puff of magic fantasy smoke.
@50 cow:
At the Bush/Kerry Election party, I once had an argument with a conservative who had a problem with his kids attending public school because health class discussed genitalia, his science class geology, etc. This guy favored killing public schools in exchange for vouchers.
I tried to reason with him that, if you're so completely outside the mainstream that you can't find agreement with a 5th grade teacher, you really need to recognize that and spend your time *buying* a private school education instead of foisting your opinions on the general public. But he insisted not only that he was right, but that I needed to pay for it. And, he was willing to argue the point until blue in the face.
I mention this because you remind me of him: same ad hominems, different politics.
There must come a point where you realize that your politics, however well-intentioned, are not supported by the rest of the country. And, at that point, you need to understand the situation well enough to stop soiling the debate.
Or, even better, change your positions in a way that makes them actually useful.
"to pick stupid brain dead morons incapable to stringing together an English sentence"
Its like raiiiiin, on your wedding day!
;)
"I've been if favor of a single payer system since the mid 1970s. I've just never thought of those who oppose it as murderers."
To be fair, only the ones who profit are murderers. The rest are useful idiots.
I dislike the negative connotation of "special interest" in this headline. You could argue that civil rights was a special interest, and that gay rights are a special interest, and that people that oppose the use of pesticides on crops are a special interest. Being a special interest isn't necessarily bad.
Stop with the murder crap. We're all murderers because we do anything other than work to save the most vulnerable person in the world (see Singer.)
#54 POSTED BY TEUFELSDROCH
More than three out of every four Americans (a robust 77 percent to put it exactly) feel it is important to have a "choice" between a government-run health care insurance option and private coverage.
You should apply your own advice to... yourself.
At this point I was going to tell you to go fuck yourself, but you’re already actively doing that by not supporting a public option.By the way, you’re still avoiding that question I asked about your hero way up there... I’ve noticed.
@COWICIDE
My apologies, I addressed a few topics in a single post and was not clear.
As a basis, I believe in a smaller federal government and more state/local lead initiatives. I hear the claim on one hand that Medicare/Medicade have the lowest overhead cost as an argument for a public/gov option -- but then on the other talk about the enormous amount of fraud and abuse that needs to be corrected.
My point with "Fantasy Land" is that there will always be constraints, and no system will be equal. I hear people often say "I think we should all get the same health care" ... this is simply not possible. We can improve, on average, the level health care offered, but we can't all have access to equal care.
Also, I would submit that the discussion thus far has not truly been about health care, but health insurance. I believe these to be separate topics, each requiring independent reform.
Unfortunately, I do not think this debate is truly about improving health care, I'm jaded enough to believe its all about $$ and votes.
By legislating a massive government program they will create thousands of 'new' jobs. How many people do you think it will take to manage this new system? Obama will be able to claim those towards his campaign and policy pledges. I imagine any jobs lost in the private sector will go unaccounted toward this gain.
How do you think the people in all these new jobs are likely to vote? I would submit they'll lean towards the candidates who promise to keep them employed, and not the candidate who wants to cut Federal spending. A massive new voter base, funded by the taxpayer and not their political coffer.
Before you think me heartless (or call me a murderer) I absolutely support improving the quality of care, reducing cost, and reaching out to those who do not / can not afford insurance. I simply disagree that the proposed legislation is the most appropriate way to meet that goal. Government programs are typically bloated, expensive, and poorly run. Why would we expect this program to be the exception?
Compose yourselves.
#60 POSTED BY CSSPUBLIC, SEPTEMBER 20, 2009 5:52 PM
I don’t understand your point there. Look at the stats... even with the fraud and abuse that needs to be corrected, Medicare STILL outperforms the private sector. Are you trying to convince me we should go with a Single Payer system or what? Heh...
So what do you suggest? A death panel? We already have a death panel... it’s called our current health insurance industry.
It’s about access to health care. People are dying because they don’t have access to health care. I would submit that the discussion is about needless loss of life in pursuit of the almighty dollar by an elite minority that runs the health insurance industry. I don’t know about you, but I’d rather have access to less than perfect health care, then have none at all and die.
So if you are so jaded, why on Earth do you trust the health insurance industry to do the job any better than the government when it’s already been proven the government (with all its warts) does a better job? (see Medicare)
Yeah! And, I bet those potential 45,000 people that might not die each year will vote for him too! What a schemer!
Uh, where did I call anyone a murderer??? o_O
(see Medicare) (see Single Payer Systems run in udder countries) (See our current health care system that is beyond fucked and needlessly kills 45,000 per year)
CowTip: You can help spread the news and "digg this up" here at digg:
http://digg.com/politics/Money_bomb_anti_special_interest_ad_with_Lessig_and_Olberman
Please help "front page" it by adding your digg.
To address your points:
"If more people got medical care, less people people would die. Can’t we simply agree on that common sense principal?"
I agree that if more people received medical care, you can increase their life expectancy by X%. What is your success measure? Adding 3months? 6months? 3 years? 10 years? People will still make poor choices. IE - have the triple bypass and continue to smoke, eat cheeseburgers, and remain obese. I know it might sound cynical - but you can't force people to be healthy, you can't make people take care of themselves.
"If people who are sick didn’t avoid the doctor because they can’t afford care, less people would die. Why can’t you understand this? The study found solid cases of preventable deaths."
I am not arguing against that, because in all you are correct. You can increase the life expentency of those who never receive medical treatment by providing it to them. Makes perfect sense. I do not believe a government funded 'public' option is the most efficient or proper way to provide this service.
My (perhaps cynical) point about life expectancy is tied to my initial comment. It's a bit naive to think you 'save' 45,000 lives a year by providing universal coverage. You simply push them into different buckets.
At the estimated cost (and yes, it is greater than zero) I do not believe we are getting the best return on our investment. There are plenty of other programs/initiatives that could be funded to improve people's lives.
To put in perspective why the public option is an important measure to give people the option of joining if they are unhappy with private health care, as well as why more regulation of the private insurance companies is needed, here are some pre-existing conditions:
"Health insurers have issued guidelines saying they could deny coverage to people suffering from such conditions as acne, hemorrhoids and bunions.
One big insurer refused to issue individual policies to police officers and firefighters, along with people in other hazardous occupations.
Some treated pregnancy or the intention to adopt as a reason for rejection."
Also on the list of pre-existing conditions is domestic violence in 8 states and DC.
I'm not denying the cost of health reform is large, but there is also a moral dimension which is often overshadowed. Too many people are one major illness away from bankruptcy, or flat out can not afford to visit the doctor.
" Look at the stats... even with the fraud and abuse that needs to be corrected, Medicare STILL outperforms the private sector."
Please cite your sources. How does it outperform the private sector? I was under the impression Medicare took in less money than it paid out in 2008 and will be broke by 2019. What good is a system that is not sustainable?
We need to have discussions over how to improve both access and quality. The president laid out three main targets for his plan, none which targeted quality. I disagree a public plan is the best way to improve either.
No, I don't trust corporations, I trust customers to make the best choices. The problem is we are no longer the customers of our health care. We are the consumers ... but the customer is the one who pays the bill. It's strange that for something as important as health care that we have little to no control over how to manage its cost. Have you ever tried to shop around for services? Look for the lowest cost physical? Echo cardiogram? Blood work?
How can you explain the massive drop in cost and increase in quality for procedures like LASIK and plastic sugary, which are typically not covered by insurance and thus individuals have an active role in choosing their service, vs things like an MRI?
Anon @ 25 and Antinous: Thanks for pointing out that US cancer survival rates are by no means the highest in the world.
Maybe those that are actually diagnosed in time for treatment, but last time I checked cancer detection and treatment in the US was abysmal. Citation being searched for as we speak.
@ Bevatron Repairman: I see what you did there, cl-ev-ah. Taking what two people say, in opinion, about those that oppose health care reform - reasonable, profit-conscious reform - and making it fact.
I based the notion of people being duped on this: European and other Western countries that have a public option have a higher quality and reach of care, at lower prices. Better outcomes for EVERYONE, save the very bottom percentile that are beyond reach. In my country, that percentage is less than a single digit - as far as access is concerned.
So yeah - I'd call the poor masses railing against this as a fair sign they've been duped. And yeah - a lot of people will die or suffer unnecessarily unless something is done.
"Nuance", look it up.
@Cowicide
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/11856.php
195,000 people die from medical errors! Why can't you understand that Ross is trying to protect the people?
CSS Public: So i can get a boob job, but if I wanna check out that dark spot on my lungs I'm totally fucked? Awesome.
@KILKS401
I think the moral aspect of the equation gets overstated and used to persuade people to make decisions they would not otherwise make.
For example, you seem outraged that 0.015% of the population in this country die each year from not being insured, and are willing to spend upward of 2% our yearly budget to address that problem. Thats $1,333,333.33 per person, assuming you save all 45,000 of those people who would die, at a cost of 60 billion per year. Is that model sustainable?
Meanwhile, I don't hear the same outrage at the 1.1 billion people in the world who do not have access to safe drinking water. The 1.2 million children under 5 who die due to that fact. Why don't we do more there? Wouldn't we get a bigger return to produce and distribute water purification systems? What if that only cost 20billion, total? Or 40? Why wouldn't we do that first?
I know, it seems off topic. My point is that this is not a moral argument, if it truly were there are a lot more demanding situations where we should become involved first. It all boils down to $$ and votes.
#69 poor comparison. we're talking in-country here, not all around the globe.
Different realms of activism.
For the misguided who argue single payer does not work elsewhere, so it won't work in the US:
My dad had a benign lung tumour removed 2 years ago. All aspects - diagnosis, the operation, postop, hospital stay etc - involved no cost or hassle and almost no wait. He's never had to stick at a job he hates because his health depends on the company plan, worry about choosing an insurer that won't screw him because vile shareholders insist on treating no one, or worry that all he can get is underfunded and overburdened "Medicaid" type care.
That's the Australian system, and its pretty much what the rest of the developed world takes for granted. America can have this system, if Americans are willing to stop telling the rest of the world how to do things, and begin learning from the world instead.
That mean streak of Puritan intolerance, that's what the RestOfTheWorld sees in the fanatical opposition to universal healthcare.
http://digitalarts.ucsd.edu/~gkester/Teaching%20copy/Final%20Images/American%20Gothic.jpg
csspublic,
Between your made-up 'facts' and your attempt to derail the discussion to children starving in Bohemia, you're starting to smell like plastic grass.
@J France
Exactly my point!
In areas where the customer has choice and discretion over who to give money for a service - that service becomes cheaper/increases in quality over time.
Today, the system is not set up for me to call a Dr's office and ask "How much for an X-Ray?". It is nearly impossible for me, as a customer, to shop around for the best quality/lowest cost provider. There is a massive system of agencies and middle men between me and the service. This will only get worse with a single payer public system. The further removed the customer is from the true cost, the less discretion they use when consuming. This is one of the major causes in the rising costs of care.
For example, can you imagine if we shopped for groceries in this way? You paid a company $200 a month for the right to take four trips to the supermarket. You are given a cart and can take home anything you can fit into the cart, for a $20 copay. What would you be filling your cart with? Would you get the $5 box wine or the 20 year old cabernet? Would you care what the price tag said if you knew your only cost was $20 when you walked out the door?
The only way to bring costs down to a reasonable level is to drive competition and allow consumers to have more control over their health spending. This will also make it more economical to cover those who might otherwise not afford it, perhaps through charities and/or private giving. I just do not believe a government ran program with no true competition or accountability can do this efficiently.
CSSPublic: There are lots of moral arguments to be made when looking at healthcare decisions but I think colouring it too much as a moral obligation feeds into fears of "too much government regulation" all the way to socialism.
It makes more sense to put it monetary terms, and talk about preventative measures - both fiscally and in terms of primary health. You can achieve amazing outcomes on a moral level, second to sounds fiscal decisions. I don't think there is anything wrong with, but the amount of wiggle-room seems to be nil in this instance.
Humanresource: As an Australian who works in primary health I can say that it does have faults, and despite the previous government peddling the system back, it still works remarkably well, with a few exceptions.
Everyone gets public cover - there have been 'gaps' to cover that have increased recently, but you can still see a GP for $5 if not for free. You can then get your medications for $5 - $20 (lowest: Low income healthcare card, top: Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme for everyone).
Amazingly, since the government intervened decades ago with pharmaceuticals, saying "we'll subsidise 99% of all medications", big pharma suddenly dropped the cost of medications outright for Australia. The idea of paying anything more that $10 for a course of simple antibiotics is outrageous, no matter what tier of income you do or don't have.
At a certain point, there is a "MediCare levy" that is taxed to higher incomes. There are also discount schemes for joining private health (and thus having your insurer pay, in conjunction with MediCare) - before you are 30, while you are in a certain pay bracket - which then freezes excess cost, etc.
THere is constant pressure on the government to allow Insurers to raise premiums, but they are regulated and capped in line with MediCare. It's government regulation, but it works.
Australia has mandatory voting for state and federal elections. Something that might freak people out, but it does mean it's a true democracy - everyone is forced to have their say (the irony), be it a legit vote or a donkey vote.
Anyhow, after that rant, here at stats of deaths by cancer by country:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_dea_fro_can-health-death-from-cancer
Australia sits just below the US, interestingly. There are expanded data sets linked at the bottom.
No no -- not trying to derail the discussion.
I 100% believe people are passionate and truly want to do the right thing and help those less fortunate.
We disagree on what is the right thing to do.
What facts have I made up?
@66 xmlfail.
plastic sugary. that's just awesome.
I think the thread needs some focus. First, most of the attention brought to Ross comes not from Lessig but from the liberal blog 'FireDogLake'
http://firedoglake.com/aboutus/
They were responsible for some reporting of the Libby trial. They've set themselves up with a fundraising site actblue
http://www.actblue.com/page/arkansaspublicoption
to collect the money needed to run ads in Arkansas, especially in Texarkana (Ross's district). This has attracted the attention of the Huffington Post, Maddow, and (apparently) Lessig.
Evidently the hub-bub surrounds Ross's position in the Energy and Commerce committee:
Ross was thrust into the national spotlight on July 21 when he and a group of seven Blue Dog Democrats on Energy & Commerce bucked their party's leaders and brought the committee mark up process of H.R. 3200, America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, to a halt. ...four of the seven Blue Dog Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, led by Ross, were able to force House leadership to agree on several provisions, namely that the full House would not vote on the legislation until at least September...and shave about 10 percent from the health care overhaul's $1 trillion, 10-year price tag, in part by limiting subsidies to people who are not insured.
These efforts were enough to generate attention from the President:
“I'm especially grateful that so many members, including some Blue Dogs on the Energy and Commerce Committee, are working so hard to find common ground. Those efforts are extraordinarily constructive in strengthening this legislation and bringing down its cost.”
Which is to say, our boy from Texarkana is wielding an awful lot of power these days, enough to attract the attention of people who'd like to remind him his job isn't as secure as he might think (Ross has run unopposed for two terms).
All this was enough for Ross to hit national news (begins around 4:20 minute mark):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbWw23XwO5o
Muckraking at its finest. Ross got $40,000 in donations from health care last year: that does not suggest that his stand for deficit-neutrality (which the president shares) was anything but principled.
haha .. sweet, a spelling mistake. and a bad pun :P
What facts have I made up?
Medical students performing surgery. At least it's a change from Obama's Grandma Murder Panels, but still a big, fat, scary lie.
fwiw, the 45k report is worth a read.
the most interesting thing is the change that factoring out the risky behaviour of the uninsured group makes. The hazard ratio (ie, the more likely you are to die) at a given age for uninsured ppl vs insured ppl between the ages of 18 and 64 goes from 1.8 down to 1.4x.
(the ~45k number comes from the 1.4x applied to 2006 census data).
which is basically saying that social/education programs to reduce risky behaviour in that socioeconomic group (increased obesity, smoking etc) is just as important as having health insurance, but I guess the money comes from bums on seats in doctors waiting rooms not keeping them out of the waiting room.
I paid into Blue Cross for 24 years and never really used it. The premiums rose every bill so my wife set about looking for a more reasonable plan. There was an "oops" and we didn't pay our bill one month and got dropped from BC. I am healthy but had serious health issues as a kid (one kidney, blah,blah).
The Balk-us plan has no provision for insuring those with pre-existing conditions until 2013. Do I have to pay a fine for being uninsured if I can't actually get any? If I die from some unforeseen situation before 2013 is that not murder?
The system as it is today sucks big time. The backassword plan proposed currently is useless for me. I am disappointed (and, potentially, dead due to this crap).
Ross got $40,000 in donations from health care last year
Mike Ross got $261,000 in the 2008 cycle. The health care sector was his largest contributor. And that's on top of the $100k/year in dividends he gets from his Ross Pharmacy Inc. stock.
"Principled" my ass.
Uhg!
How many times must we learn the same lesson. Obviously everybody wants healthcare. Obviously no one wants to pay for it. That is why insurance companies exist, right? Whether it is transportation, education, or the military, when the public wants something, and they do not want to pay for it, the government will eventually take it over. The same is true of healthcare. Any baby-steps that we take toward this goal, although positive as they may be, are only prolonging the time and increasing the eventual cost. The sooner we realize this the better off we will be.
I know that we do in fact pay for public institutions with our taxes but this is a pittance compared to the cost to our society if we do not.
USA comes ahead of UK in the death rates race, but UK comes out ahead in life expectancy. Choose your stats.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy
USA also trails UK in infant mortality (think of the children!): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate
re:76
I am aware of these pressures on Australia's health system, and aware of other ones - like the incredibly low population densities, which make it hard to provide comprehensive care far from the capital cities. As to the cancer thing, I think you'll find that Australians are prone to skin cancer more than any other country, on account of us living under the ozone hole; with checkups rendered prohibitively expensive for the uninsured, a US health system in Australia would presumably allow melanomas to spread unchecked, giving us even worse survival rates.
What strikes me, though, is that the benefits I mentioned (short waits, no reliance on arsehole bosses and insurers, and often no hassle or cost) are obtained, for ALL people, in a system that costs roughly 8-9% of GDP, unlike the US system, which consumes over 16%. The Blue Dogs are simply liars when they claim that fiscal responsibility is what makes them cock-block Obama.
Other than secessionists, I've never met or heard of anybody who really believed this. The same Republicans who want the federal government to stop doing things turn out not to want the states to do those things either. Every time.
"Medical students performing surgery. At least it's a change from Obama's Grandma Murder Panels, but still a big, fat, scary lie."
Woh! Slow down. I had two points here. And it was not intended as a scare tactic.
1) Not everyone can be seen by 'the best'. A limited resource exists, and just like any group of people there will be a gradient of competency.
2) "They do residencies in teaching hospitals where they learn from attending physicians..."
Yes, exactly. Residents absolutely perform surgery. I can see how from my earlier post I was not 100% clear, and you might have assumed I was talking about undergrad or grad students, and not residents (who I consider to still be students).
http://americanheart.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=526
Unfortunately that clouded my point. Like it or not, health care is a scarce resource. There are only so many Dr's, Nurses, etc. We can't all have access to the same level of care. But we can set policy and incentives to improve the quality of care, on average, for everyone.
I simply disagree that a government funded public option is the best course.
Obama keeps talking about how "my bill" will do this and "that's a lie about what's in my bill."
Could someone please point me to the actual and full text of Obama's bill?
"I simply disagree that a government funded public option is the best course."
Why are U against this? You are free to get ureself an insurance if you want to. But since the insurence companies dont manage to (want to) compete with eachother for real, and since there are people who are exluded from the private insurance system for reasons outside of thier control ( you know, disease pushing up the premiums etc), what so wrong with an alternative??
I mean, alternatives are good, right?
And since U want the the goverment to fund so many other things, like your wars and shit, why not let them run some healtcare too? What harm can it do?
Im sure you imagine all insurance companys going out of buisness. Well maybe then its time to compete for real.
TSchuss
I was astounded when Lessig dropped his previous crusade for one against nebulously defined "corruption" which sounded like a ludicrously Sisyphean task. I should have know that his definition of "corruption" would be ... rather cramped and, perhaps time will show, all too partisan.
Of course, Der Staat is never "a special interest."
"I've been if favor of a single payer system since the mid 1970s. I've just never thought of those who oppose it as murderers."
I've been in favor of a national 5 mile an hour speed limit since 1963. It amazes me that folks continue to berate this position, most are just stupid country folk who want to speed along crazily at 55 mph. Studies have shown that a 5 mile an hour speed limit will totally decrease auto accident deaths by over 100,000 a year. If you are not for a 5 mph speed limit, you are a murderer.
Somehow I doubt Democrats supprting this have any intention of not taking contributions from unions and teacher's groups and such.
@NOCITONS
I'm guessing that you were educated in a government run education system. Your mastery of the English language including spelling and grammar is sufficient evidence to demonstrate why a government run program inevitably leads to lower quality.
@83 Grim:
That is a lot.
OK, you can correlate money with Blue Dog opposition: can you also correlate their POSITIONS with health care interests? And, why doesn't the president agree with you?
My presumption would be that government health insurance subsidies and business mandates (what Ross is fighting for) are both things Ross's insurance sweethearts would want.
I can only imagine the amount of spittle that would be flying if some Fox talking head appeared on such an ad advocating against this.
Question for all the people who think it's great for Olbermann to be mixing his news hat with advocacy: would you be as happy if (insert your least favorite Fox personality here) did the same thing? Do you think any of the other networks would air such an ad?
Yes, I think the left should invest a HUGE amount of money in ads targeting Mike Ross because it would be cash rapidly flushed out to sea. Ross has no competition and is so popular with his constituents it is unlikely he will in the foreseeable future. As for Olbermann, he is about as popular in our parts as a burd in a punch bowl in these parts.
Has this been reported as an in-kind contribution to the Democratic Party? If not, why not? And why is this described as against special interests when it supports Lessig's special interest group?
Oh yeah, I forgot, the far left isn't a special interest, it's a "reform" group.
Ken Hahn
@NOCITONS
Thank you for asking.
A government funded public option, by design, will be anticompetitive because it will be subsidized by our tax dollars.
Sure, I'll be free to keep my private insurance, but over time it will become less and less economically favorable.
For example, Person A makes $50,000 per year. To pay for this new health coverage option the tax liability increases by a modest 1%. So, they now pay an additional $500 per year ($40 per month) into this fund.
Person A wants private insurance. OK - lets put catastrophic private insurance costs about $150 a month. So, over the course of a year they will pay $1800 into that plan. A is buying $1800 worth of coverage.
The problem is that A has put $500 into a plan that they received no return. Thus, A's health care coverage costs is $2300, but is only receiving $1800 worth of coverage.
For the public option to not be favorable, it would have to cost an additional $200 per month, and give less benefits. IE - it would have to cost more than $2400 per year and only provide $1800 or less worth of coverage. If that were the case however, why would anyone use it? Wouldn't that be self defeating?
I don't disagree that we need more competition in the market (see above posts). However, further removing consumers from choice and responsibility does not meet that goal.
CSSPublic is simply trying to point out that with private health care, people have options, choices, and alternatives. If you don't like what you have, you can switch. If government takes over health care, choices will become more limited; the system will not be transparent, and the whole system will grow increasingly expensive and manipulated by $$ contributions from "special interest groups".
Medicare is currently cheaper because they dictate costs; but the rest of us are paying for that with higher charges from pharmaceuticals and doctors to private insurance. When private insurance becomes a non-entity, no one will be there to pick up the excess costs; so either we won't have newly developed drugs and procedures, or we'll have to wait longer to get them.
"...he is about as popular in our parts as a burd in a punch bowl in these parts."
Despite the misspelling and redundancy it is a charming image: A little bird splashing in a punchbowl.
re: # 90
Sorry, but one-dimensional theories don't really capture many of the essential facts in this debate. For a non-American, its bewildering to see these libertarian formulas presented as self-evident truths when they don't even pretend to acknowledge an abundance of contrary evidence.
Try a little empiricism; the evidence is overwhelming that in the real world, dozens of countries have run effective universal health care systems for decades and private health insurance continues to operate in those countries. And it is all so much cheaper than the US system when you look at aggregate costs. Moreover, the things you can't measure - like knowing that poverty won't cost you your health care, and knowledge that the provider has no shareholders insisting he denies care - have immense value that your formula could never encompass.
The health insurance lobby has also been spending money in favor of health insurance reform, because they like some aspects of the bill. So has the pharmaceutical industry, the AARP, and other special interest groups.
But when PhRMA cuts a deal with the Administration and agrees to lobby and advertise in favor of health care reform, there were far fewer complaints. Indeed, there were complaints that the Republicans were being needlessly obstructionist for blocking a bill that must be good, since all the special interests were in favor of it.
By the same token, special interest money from the same groups is deemed perfectly okay so long as the recipient favors the reform bill. Understandably; nobody really cares about money in politics. What people care about is their chosen policies, and money only to the extent it achieves that goal or hinders it. What these people care about is opposition to the health care bill; money is just an excuse.
#85 POSTED BY CSSPUBLIC
No matter how many facts show you udderrwise, huh? You seem to act like you know tons of "facts" about the issue yet you are simply unable to "find" any (readily accessible) data that shows Medicare outperforms the private sector?
Sorry... I smell a rat with an agenda.
@#83 POSTED BY GRIMC
Thank you for the Ross smackdown... I'm sure your post will be conveniently ignored and/or dismissed by the apologists on the udder side.
#68 POSTED BY ANONYMOUS, SEPTEMBER 20, 2009 8:25 PM
It never ceases to amaze me when I watch the udder side attempt to make arguments against a public option by showing how shitty the current private system is.
The disconnect here would be hilarious if it wasn't for all the death and misery this ignorance causes for the rest of us in this country.
Yay!! America has higher cancer survival rates than the UK!!!
Now, please tell me how many of those survivors had to declare bankruptcy due to their treatment?
That's the angle in this whole debate -- anyone can get treatment in the United States, and access is pretty widespread. So that's not the issue.
The issue is the million families who go bankrupt each year simply because they got sick.
#89 POSTED BY BANJO, SEPTEMBER 21, 2009 6:52 AM
We'll see about that, Banjo...
Interesting Mike Ross tidbits for apologists to ignore:
According to the Census Bureau, 17.6% of Arkansas residents are without health insurance. The situation is even worse in Ross' own district, where 21.8% are uninsured.
75% of the state's insurance market is controlled by one company (Arkansas Blue Cross Blue Shield) and state health insurance premiums skyrocketed 66% between 2000 and 2007. The situation in Ross' town of Prescott, Ark is especially grim.
Link back to appropriate Onion article here:
http://www.boingboing.net/2009/09/03/al-franken-talks-an.html#comment-581226
@#87 posted by teufelsdroch
"OK, you can correlate money with Blue Dog opposition: can you also correlate their POSITIONS with health care interests? And, why doesn't the president agree with you?"
So you're just going to slide off the money connection as if it didn't matter when someone totally calls you on your crooked claim that Blue Dog opposition to a public option doesn't arise from health insurance donations (entirely what the commercial in the post is about)? And the next stage in your time-wasting disinformation campaign is a question totally ignoring the fact that Blue Dog democrats, in opposing a strong public option, are doing exactly what the insurance companies want?
Your final question is the most disingenuous of all, as it suggests that the President's conciliatory remarks meant to keep the peace in his own political party are somehow a refutation of all the times he very publicly supported a public option.
Honestly, isn't it time you scrapped the "teufelsdroch" username in favor of one where you can still hope to confuse gullible people by pretending to be engaged in honest dialectic? As it is, your antics are practically forcing people to make donations to Change Congress.
I can see how from my earlier post I was not 100% clear
Arguing with you is like wrassling an eel in a kiddie pool full of KY. If you can't distinguish between a medical student and resident with six years of clinical experience, why not just bypass the "facts" altogether and yell, I LOVE AMERICA?
The left arguing that the blue dogs have betrayed them is basically saying "How dare the half of our coalition that keeps us from being a fringe party have a say in our ideas!"
Politics, the art of the possible. There are two ways you can learn that, and you're picking the hard way right now.
The left arguing that the blue dogs have betrayed them is basically saying "How dare the half of our coalition that keeps us from being a fringe party have a say in our ideas!"
The "left" expected the blue dogs to act like this all along, so claiming that they feel "betrayed" is silly and inaccurate.
You're also completely wrong about the Blue Dogs being "half" of Dem representation in the House. There are 256 Dems, 52 of which are Blue Dogs. They aren't even the largest caucus. That would be the Congressional Progressive Caucus, with 83. You know, the "fringe".
Fact-based opinions, the art of doing a little research before you open your mouth.
#113 POSTED BY MIKE GEBERT, SEPTEMBER 21, 2009 10:35 AM
Mike, Mike, Mike... I hate to break it to you, but not only is Grimc correct above, it is also you yourself as well that is on the fringe here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xp9852hq0W0
Over three out of every four Americans supports the option for a public option along with private health insurance.
This great comparison just came out:
Healthcare around the world
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8201711.stm
America... lame...
@111 Millions
As it is, your antics are practically forcing people to make donations to Change Congress.
You can donate all the money you want to Change Congress: if you manage to piss enough people off you might, just might, manage to get a Republican in Ross's office.
Again, there's a disconnect here between what coastal liberals want and what middle American liberals can support. The disconnect is real and does not require that Ross have any motivation other than his constituency. That these commercials would threaten to dump Ross reveals a fundamental misunderstanding about politics in the 'rest' of the country.
And, yes, I do believe that the President's support of Blue Dogs refutes the notion that Ross is acting disingenuously. After Ross halted the House bill and cut its budget, Obama thanked him for strengthening it. I believe that is because Obama realized long ago that the public option was a non-starter, and Ross was beginning the process of reconciling the House with political reality.
Once again, for clarity: Ross is not against healthcare reform, against making it illegal to dump pre-existing conditions, against interstate insurance, co-ops, or many other good ideas. He is against the public option. And, seeing as how the difference between the House and Senate bills is over $1 trillion, he has a basis for his argument.
He MAY be crooked, but he NEED NOT be. I, for one, share his opinions, and I'm glad he represents my state.
#117 POSTED BY TEUFELSDROCH
Yah... I can see why... after all, it's all worked out fantastic so far...
[sigh] repeat...
According to the Census Bureau, 17.6% of Arkansas residents are without health insurance. The situation is even worse in Ross' own district, where 21.8% are uninsured.
75% of the state's insurance market is controlled by one company (Arkansas Blue Cross Blue Shield) and state health insurance premiums skyrocketed 66% between 2000 and 2007. The situation in Ross' town of Prescott, Ark is especially grim.
Teufel... I continue to notice that you're still dodging the question I asked you up there a long, long time ago about your little "hero"... what are you afraid of ???
Cowicide:
Whatever you believe, whatever reasons you have to believe it, you can't ask me to pay for something I don't want to pay for.
Here's an idea: we introduce state-run, not-for-profit co-ops. We allow businesses to pool their employees for a better deal. We introduce mandates to keep healthy people in the system. We let people in Arkansas select from private insurance companies outside the state. We install laws to protect consumers, promote healthy behaviors, and restrict waste. We reform liability so that doctors pay attention to their patient's actual needs. And we DON'T fucking hand the whole thing over to the federal government. How about that.
CSSPublic & anon 102: I will admit, under the system I live in I can't go shopping for x-ray providers, MRI providers - name a test, and I'll tell you I can't choose the provider if I'm referred by a GP.
What I can do is get that test within a day or two (up to maybe a week when talking about more complex, equipment heavy tests - CAT scan perhaps).
And that's under a government controlled system.
Oh, And I don't have to pay for that x-ray, or MRI, or CAT scan, or blood works, psychiatrist, pediatrist, dermatologist etc etc
(I can actually choose a provider, but only if I want to pay "full market" price without a referral. But that's less than many "insured" prices a US citizen would pay, employed. I'm sure I was trying to illustrate some drawback with a government regulated / run system...)
I still am yet to see an argument that actually addresses the fact that these systems work. Most objections really seem to be playing to tradition and the fear that inevitably unpins that - even the more reasonable voices can't seem to escape it.
One thing that this debate eems to lack: the shared starting point that everyone deserves adequate healthcare. Everyone, anyone. Human beings.
The fact that it's denied in very poor countries is heart breaking, and I'll always encourage my government to contribute more and more aid. I don't get why some people accept it as OK in what is meant to be one of the most developed nations on Earth. To hear Teufeldroch even think about healthcare in those terms is quite disturbing.
1. We already subsidize insurance heavily, because "health care benefits" aka insurance payments by your employer are not considered taxable income.
2. We already pay a lot of money to insurance companies. The average family's co-pay is $13,000. Do not tell me that we cannot provide something better than that. The average cost of Medicare is $8000/person.
3. Given that our current healthcare system is employer provided, employees do not get choices. As an employer, I know how expensive and painful it is to deal with insurance companies.
4. Note that the current system means that if you happen to lose your job (hello recession!) you will also be suddenly paying thousands a month for COBRA coverage, or going without insurance. Of course, being out of work and the stress around that increases the need for healthcare. It's a fucked up system.
JFrance:
It is easy for us to be comfortable with the familiar.
While this post is starting to wind down, I agree that we do not have a set of solid, discussed, and agreed upon set of principles from which to base the health care discussion. I think we probably disagree on these principles, but that is another discussion :)
I don't think anyone has said a single-payer / gov run system will not operate -- clearly it can -- the discussion at hand (i think!) is if that is the most appropriate/efficient way for it to be structured (in the United States).
"Oh, And I don't have to pay for that x-ray, or MRI, or CAT scan, or blood works, psychiatrist, pediatrist, dermatologist etc etc"
Yes, you do. You just don't pay for it directly, or know how much it truly costs. Your taxes pay for it, your business pay for it, etc. Nothing is free.
I have been careful not to say that the current US system is perfect/good/the best/etc. Our current system is not sustainable, and needs addressed. I do not agree that a federal mandated government system is the proper way to fix it.
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PRO/content/PRO_1_1_Cancer_Statistics_2009_Presentation.asp
http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerstats/survival/latestrates/
Somebody please explain where I am going wrong here.
Isn't the purpose of government to provide services that would otherwise be unfeasible (either too expensive or unfair) for the private sector to provide?
If a capitalist open market if the basis for any necessary service, won't it alway result in an increasing divide between rich and poor?
Is this what we want to happen?
#119 POSTED BY TEUFELSDROCH
I haven’t just stated my beliefs; I’ve stated facts & asked you a serious question about Ross. Facts and a question you continue to ignore; and in the process it makes you less and less credible. While you continue your faith-based rants, I’ll stick with rational conjecture based on facts, thank you.
Keep healthy people in the system? I figure that was a typo and you meant un-healthy, correct? Anyway...
Health insurance co-ops have already been tried and have failed for the most part (miserably). Why not actually try something that has been PROVEN to work worldwide? A single payer system or the very least a public option?
Co-ops have largely failed to provide health care savings for small businesses and the self-employed because they couldn’t amass enough purchasing power to leverage better prices from the health insurance industry. Health insurers, hostile to co-ops, have been free to ignore them and refuse to sell coverage. Insurers' hostility and neglect also prevented co-ops from offering a sufficient variety of plans with good benefits to attract a large enough group of members.
Your idea of a State-based or regional co-op health plan would still remain beholden to for-profit insurance companies for provision of coverage. Conversely, the proposed "public option" would allow business and individuals and small businesses to bypass the private insurance market altogether, if they chose, and avoid wasteful administrative costs and profits that are ten times greater than administrative costs of public health plans like Medicare.
The idea that co-ops will provide competition in the private market that would have effect on cost is an illusion. You’re talking about using taxpayer money to pay money to private insurers without any competition. How insane is that?
You “seem” so capable of research... try it. One thing you’ll find is that it does NOT “fucking hand the whole thing over to the federal government”.
We have a post office, Federal Express and UPS. Works fine.
If I wanted health care handed over to one, large, untrustworthy, corrupt, wasteful institution I’d stick with the current corporate system as it is.
Government officials screw the public and the public votes them out on their ass... CEO’s screw the public and they get bonuses in the millions.
Your blind trust for the current insurance industry amidst all these fact is naive at best or at worst shows a potential agenda.
Once again, will you please, please, please, please, please, please, please... (ad nauseam) answer my question I asked you ages ago about your hero, Ross?
I’ve noticed you haven’t answered it... YET.
@#124 POSTED BY CSSPUBLIC
What's your point? Throwing out a link to a slideshow without context?
#28 POSTED BY LAKELADY
Lady, are you kidding?
Fox News Producer Caught Rallying 9/12 Protest Crowd In Behind-The-Scenes Video
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/19/fox-news-producer-caught_n_292529.html
Hugemonkey:
"Somebody please explain where I am going wrong here."
Well, luckily you phrased the question in a way that you cannot be 'wrong'.
The purpose of government can be debated, and is largely going to be a personal (or societal) decision.
I think the purpose of government is to serve and protect its population. (See preamble of the United States Constitution).
"If a capitalist open market if the basis for any necessary service, won't it alway result in an increasing divide between rich and poor?"
No.
"Is this what we want to happen?"
I'm not clear on what you are asking. Do you wish everyone to be given the same amount so that there is no divide between rich and poor? If not, what divide between rich and poor is acceptable?
This story has now gone national:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113042528
What's more, folks are following up on the traditional meme of real estate bogosity in rural Arkansas:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/27410.html
The latter has some potential of becoming a real stink.
Hot off the presses:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/27459.html
One thing I've learned through this is that political coverage is, genuinely, much better online than in print media. The Arkansas-Democrat Gazette has yet to run anything on this topic. Yesterday's news, indeed.
@#130 & #131
Thanks for those links. I'm surprised you offered those links, but glad you did.
Hopefully with enough sunlight shed on the opposition (Ross, etc.) to the public option, people will finally begin to realize the true source of the opposition is not with their best interests at heart. It's about corporate payoffs.
im yer huckleberry
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21Rf0URZfLQ
http://www.cinemaisdope.com/news/films/goodbadugly/goodthebadandtheugly.jpg
By the way, don't let the insurance company shrills brainwash you into thinking the public option is dead. It's not dead. They just want the public to think it's dead and give up. The fight is NOT over.
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/schumer-rockefeller-we-will-get-public-option
Will Ferrell, Jon Hamm, Olivia Wilde, and other celebs band together to "protect" insurance company profits from the evils of health care reform with this PSA video.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/22/protect-insurance-compani_n_294406.html
And, don't forget... the death panels... are REAL
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/e357e52d41/death-panel-advisors
I love the part where he talks with Bigfoot.