Response to M-247 Gunner Questions on Healthcare

[sarge87]

I have a list of questions that I never hear anyone on the right or anti-reform crowd answer. I don’t expect you to answer all of the questions at any one time (although it would be interesting), but you certainly could pick three or four and give a honest factual answer*.

Those people aren't anti-reform. They're just for not doing it the way Democrats want them too.

 

1. Why are we the only industrialized nation in the world that does not have universal health care?

Why do we have a Bill of Rights? Our rights as individuals grants us freedom from this sort of coercive power.

 

Why do you think the doctors in England take to the streets every year in protest of the government? They are by virtue, government employees. If I am a doctor, a human being, a citizen of the US, I have the right to go act on my own behalf. In other words, to provide my labor to the market in return for a profit. If I create a company that develops cures for illnesses, do I own my intellectual property, or does the government?

 

Show me one of these not-for-profit medical systems that produce the sheer quantity and quality of life saving technology and drugs that our system has produced. Students come here from other countries to learn their trade, because we have the best facilities, technology, and the best medical minds training these future doctors and nurses.

 

Government brings nothing to the table but bureaucracy and red tape. I'll give you a current example Cash For Clunkers (C4C). All the government had to do was to disperse $3 Billion dollars to auto retailers and they can't even do that right. The retailers complained of cumbersome paperwork (13 page application) and slow turnaround getting cash back for money they have paid out in the hundreds of thousands. It has gotten so bad, the New York Automotive Association have discontinued the program because many of their dealers are operating in the red. In the 7 weeks C4C has been in effect, only $140 million, or about 7 percent of the claims out of $1.9 Billion dealers submitted nationwide, have actually been paid.

 

Just apply this to healthcare. How long before medical practitioners, hospitals, and clinics will opt out because they can't get paid? Eventually, and the "check is in the mail" doesn't pay the bills to your suppliers.

 

2. Why are we the only nation in the world that allows insurance companies to deny coverage because of pre-existing conditions?

So, if I go and wreck my uninsured new car, and then show up at an insurance company demanding they cover my car after the fact....How dumb does that sound?

 

3. Why do Republicans say that a government run health insurance system will be more costly than a private system when actual administrative costs for Medicare are just 3% of the total expenditure and for private insurers are 14% of the total?

The agreed upon number of uninsured Americans is around 45 million or roughly 15.3% of the US population of 300 million, so that would mean there are 255 million that currently have private health insurance. In 2007, persons 65 or older on Medicare totaled 37.9 million which means that private companies are handling 6.7 times the number of people on Medicare. If you do the math, they are actually more efficient than Medicare.

 

4. Why do Republicans claim that private insurance companies are better run than any government system would operate but then whine that a government system would be too efficient for private insurers to compete against? President Obama insists that a public system must be self-sufficient and not subsidized by taxpayers so it would be a level playing field.

This is such a loaded question because I've never heard the words "government" and "efficiency" used in the same sentence before. Tell me what government program or GSE is efficient? Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have gone to the government coffers three times since their initial bailout last fall. The US Postal Service is a joke, and I don't have to tell anyone how inferior the public education system is. We spend $10,000 per student - almost twice as much as any other country - and rank towards the bottom year after year. Amtrak? I can go on and on if you would like.

 

This is not an efficiency question but a monopoly question. The government has unlimited resources and will tailor the laws that will always give the government company unfair advantage eventually squeezing out the competition. This isn't about competition but control. How long would you think it would take before the controlling political party uses the GSE to create their own political fiefdoms?

 

5. Why are 31% of health care costs in the U.S. spent on administrative expenses while less than half of that expense occurs in single payer government run systems around the world? Over $1000.00 per person per year is spent on health care administrative costs in the USA.

Population. 300 million vs. France 61 million, Canada 30 million, England 60 million ect. ect. ect. It's comparing 1 big apple to a bunch of small grapes.

 

6. Why do we rank 37th in overall quality of care and 72nd in overall health of 191 countries evaluated? The facts are that virtually every nation with universal care spends far less on their health care than we do with far better results.

Check cancer survival rates in those countries. They rank far far less. Again the method the WHO went by getting the numbers have been disputed by many organizations explanation denoted in asterisks.

 

7. Why do French men live three years longer than American men? Don’t they drink a lot, smoke a lot, and eat rich food? Could it be that their health care is far better than ours?

They also work less. Genetics plays a factor also. The statistics here are skewed because the murder rate and traffic fatality rate is also higher in the US which is reflected in the study. Again we're comparing on great big apple to tiny grapes.

 

8. Why, if we have the most technology and spend the most money on health care, do we rank 29th in infant mortality rate? The rate our babies die in their first year is twice that of European nations. Why is it acceptable to Republicans to kill our babies unnecessarily?

Most of these countries lack our advanced neo-natal care, so abortion is pushed at a higher rate if a fetal abnormality is discovered such as Down's Syndrome. Cuban's have a 1:3 abortion rate is why they rank higher in this category. According to the same study, places like Singapore and Oman rank higher than most industrialized countries. Yet, there's not a major migration of sick people from our crappy US healthcare to go there if it is so good.

 

9. Why would Republicans worry that a government bureaucracy would get between the patient and the doctor when they find it acceptable for private insurance companies do that right now?

You can change insurance companies. Once the government has complete control, there is no escape and no recourse.

 

10. Why, if Canadians have to come to the US for timely treatment as Republicans claim, are our border states’ hospitals not overrun with Canadians? Could it be that the vast majority of Canadians getting care in the US are doing so because they get sick during their 2-3 months as “snowbirds” in Hilton Head, Myrtle Beach, and West Palm Beach? Studies by legitimate independent researchers do not support the antidotal “evidence” in the GOP ads.

Explain why world leaders, entertainers, and others travel here for medical procedures rather than using their home country's "free" healthcare? Medical tourism to the US is a booming business.

 

11. Why are we are spending 50% more of our GDP on health care costs than any other nation? The average annual costs for countries with universal health care is 10% of GDP. France, with the best health care in the world, pays just 11% of their GDP versus our 16% of GDP.

I don't know where you get 50% more of GDP? It's more like 5%. Again population.

 

12. Why, if Republicans are concerned about costs for businesses and the government, do they support a system that spends so much more of our business profits and government receipts (taxes) on health care than all other countries?

What would change? All the same dynamics are here. Except now the government will own the labor of doctors, specialists, nurses, and violate the intellectual property rights of drug manufacturers. They will write laws giving the GSE advantages that the private sector will not have.

 

The President the other day tried to make a lame analogy comparing the Post Office with FedEx and UPS saying that they were competing quite well with the government, saying; "It's the Post Office that is having all the troubles.". A little known fact is the government tried unsuccessfully to give the USPS an unfair advantage over the other two companies by passing laws prohibiting FedEx and UPS from carrying First Class Mail. FedEx got around this by implementing it's guaranteed next day policy for delivering documents (pre fax machine days) which many businesses preferred than the normal 2-3 business days waiting for First Class Mail that USPS had.

 

13. Why, if adjudication costs are going down (a statistical fact), are malpractice insurance costs continuing to rise? (More profits for the insurance companies?!?!).

The legal and financial costs of medical malpractice in the U.S. amounted to about $17 billion in 2005, so I don't know where you came up with this. Follow the relationship between cerebral palsy and C-sections and you will understand. In 1985, then trial lawyer John Edwards won a settlement of 6.5 million dollars against a hospital and 1.5 million dollars from an OB/GYN doctor arguing that if a C-section had only been done for an unfortunate child, she would have been born without cerebral palsy. (He actually convinced the idiots in the jury he was channeling the unborn baby girl, Jennifer Campbell, who was speaking to the jurors through him.) This case set off a chain reaction of suits throughout the country, leading obstetricians to practice defensive c-sections. But curiously, there has been no change in the rate of babies born with cerebral palsy. As The New York Times reported: "Studies indicate that in most cases, the disorder is caused by fetal brain injury long before labor begins." All those Caesareans have, however, increased the mother's risk of death, hemorrhage, infection, pulmonary embolism and Mendelson's syndrome. Until there is true tort reform, which there will never be because of the trial lawyer dollars in the political coffers of Democrats, malpractice insurance will be expensive. Their argument will be the patient suffers without a monetary claim. Then my question here is why do other countries have a "loser pays" system for adjudication, but we don't? But then again, campaign cash always cures that nagging conscience the Democrats may have.

 

In short, the threat of lawsuit causes doctors to order needless tests in order to cover their backsides which raises the cost of care to the patient.

 

14. Why do the top 5% of Americans use 50% of health care expenditures?

I don't know where you got this from...top 5%? It is true that 5 percent of the population accounts for the majority of health expenditures is because this accounts for the elderly who use the most expenditures the last 60 days of their life. Unless you want to call for a panel to say these people can't have that healthcare, because they're going to die anyway. Death panel anyone?

 

15. If our average American is getting “the best health care in the world” for an average insurance cost of $12,000.00; what do the Rolls Royce plans provide for $40,000.00? What is it that the wealthy are getting for their insurance dollars that the average American is not? Private rooms do not cost that much. Could it be that the best health care in the world is reserved for only the wealthy?

I don't know. Ask your legislators and their union buddies who will be exempt from the current plans being put together. They have the "Cadillac Plans." Let's see how Teddy Kennedy would have fared with his brain fart if he was taken to some run-of-the-mill clinic in the city instead of airlifted to Duke University, a private healthcare facility.

 

16. Why, if Republicans are worried about the bottom line, did they pass the Medicare drug bill without the ability to negotiate costs with drug companies? The result is that Medicare is paying 77% higher drug costs than other governments do.

Okay say we would do this. Will you take responsibility if those companies either (A.) Layoff thousands of workers or (B.) Move operations overseas. R&D is very expensive. BTW, Obama cut a deal with the pharmaceutical industry banning foreign imports of drugs. Of course, after this leaked, they denied it.

 

I am betting they made the deal back in March along with the go ahead by the AARP, which they have denied now, because the backlash by their membership was far greater than they imagined.

 

17. Why, if Republicans are worried about deficits, did they pass the Medicare drug bill without a means to pay for it? President Obama has said that health care reform will be budget neutral and has reinstated PayGo requirements for congress. (PayGo = all new expenditures must be balanced by reductions elsewhere or paid for by new revenues).

Conservatives all over did not support the Medicare drug bill at all and fought against it. Why do you think most Conservatives stayed home instead of voting in 2006? They were acting like Democrats spending money they didn't have.

 

Pleeeease...Pay go...Don't make me call you naive. The CBO has already said the health care bill would increase the federal deficit by $239 billion over the next 10 years. Medicare already has $54 trillion in unpaid liabilities. Social Security has $18 Trillion in unpaid liabilities. Enough said.

 

18. Why are we one of only two countries in the world that permits television advertising of prescription drugs?

Why not. They are companies advertising a product that is legal the last time I checked.

 

19. Why do Republicans say that there are ways of taking care of the problems with the health insurance industry and delivery of care other than what the Democrats want to do, yet they offer no actual plans that stand scrutiny?

They have several plans. In order to get a bill out of committee it has to have a Democratic sponsor. The Democrats decided in January that any Democrat who works with any Republicans would be punished. See Jane Harmon.

 

When the Republicans gained control of the House in 1994, Newt Gingrich passed a rule allowing for unlimited floor amendments as a goodwill gesture to the minority party so they wouldn't be shut out of the process as they were years before 1994. Committee Chairmanships were term limited to three terms so politicos couldn't establish individual fiefdoms in their areas of jurisdiction as was the case before then. The recommit motion was another way the House minority could slow progress of a bill, and it had been in place for over a hundred years.

 

Pelosi repealed everyone of those rules effectively shutting the Republicans out of the process.

 

20. Why, if Republicans have a better way of fixing health care as they claim, did they not do it during the Bush administration?

They learned not to touch third rail issues since the failure to reform Social Security. Bush outlined a plan that was favorable to the younger voters by being able to invest part of their accounts in a 401K type plan, but Democrats mobilized the AARP and other senior groups to defeat the bill. Kind of ironic really, because the same groups - AARP excluded, but not their membership - are mobilizing to kill this bill. When you propose to fund your bill by taking a half of a trillion dollars out of Medicare over ten years, it has a tendency to piss the old people off, and they reliably vote every election cycle.

 

21. How do we claim a higher moral standing than others when we find it acceptable to make a profit on the misery and illnesses of our citizens when all other nations believe it is morally reprehensible to treat their people that way?

Pleeeeease. Communists, Maoists, and Marxists killed hundreds of millions just because of political dissension. Now they find "so-called" morality and compassion? Wasn't it Democrats who kept whining about the right trying to legislate morality? Well there you go, I don't want to legislate morality.

 

In all seriousness, you're not talking about contribution but coercion. There is a big difference between "I will help someone" voluntarily and "You will help someone" enforced by threat of law.

 

22. Why are the same “moral and Christian value” politicians who stopped health care reform fifteen years ago still putting insurance companies and private for-profit providers ahead of the citizens they claim to represent?

I'm agnostic, but I figure the Christian's Jesus would not want capitulation enforced by the sharp tip of the Roman's spear.

 

****Many of these questions are derived from a report by the WHO in 2000 which is suspect and has been disputed by many independent studies. It's composite index of overall performance includes patient satisfaction and the accessibility of health care to low income and elderly people. But no actual patients or citizens of these countries were surveyed. Rather, the report relied on a survey of public health experts, many of whom did not reside in the countries whose responsiveness to patients and the poor they were rating.

 

Some of the questions here seem to mirror those of the created straw man DNC talking point of how the insurance companies and big pharma are ginning up the opposition to this bill which is not happening unless they want to be blacklisted. Let's take a look who's really in the pockets of whom.

 

In the 2008 election cycle health insurance companies donated $1.425M to Barack Obama, they donated $575,746 to Hillary Clinton. They gave $427,228 to John McCain. All told, health insurance companies gave 73% of all their contributions to Democrats. So I will oppose this attempt at centralized control of 1/6 of our nation's economy on my own objections to it. As for the insurance companies, they made their bed throwing in with the Democrats, and they can deal with the consequences.

 

In the 2008 election cycle pharmaceutical companies donated $2.125M to Barack Obama, $665,422 to John McCain, and $645,745 to Hillary Clinton. All told, the pharmaceutical industry gave 66.9% to Democrats and 33.1% to Republicans.

 

Oh, big surprise! Obama reaches an $80 Billion deal with Big Pharma. What the MSM is hiding from this story is this deal bars the government from negotiating lower drug prices. Omigosh, the same thing Bush was criticized for when passing the Medicare Drug Prescription bill. At least Pharma received a good deal for that $2.125M in campaign cash for Hope and Change.

 

Those big hospitals the Democrats like to demonize for charging exorbitant fees donated $3.34M to Barack Obama, $950,277 to Hillary Clinton, and $727,904 to John McCain. All told, the Hospital/Nursing Home industry gave 75.9% to Democrats and 24.1% to Republicans.

 

Democrats have the majority in the House and a super majority in the Senate. What's the hold up? They can pass any bill they want. PASS IT ALREADY and quit playing politics. They're too chicken sh!t to pass anything without "bipartisan" cover. If they happen to ruin the US healthcare system without Republicans to blame, then maybe they might be able to run for dog catcher in say 50 or 60 years after the electorate has forgotten.

[carlfense]

I have a list of questions that I never hear anyone on the right or anti-reform crowd answer. I don’t expect you to answer all of the questions at any one time (although it would be interesting), but you certainly could pick three or four and give a honest factual answer*.

Those people aren't anti-reform. They're just for not doing it the way Democrats want them too.

 

1. Why are we the only industrialized nation in the world that does not have universal health care?

Why do we have a Bill of Rights? Our rights as individuals grants us freedom from this sort of coercive power.

 

Why do you think the doctors in England take to the streets every year in protest of the government? They are by virtue, government employees. If I am a doctor, a human being, a citizen of the US, I have the right to go act on my own behalf. In other words, to provide my labor to the market in return for a profit. If I create a company that develops cures for illnesses, do I own my intellectual property, or does the government?

 

Show me one of these not-for-profit medical systems that produce the sheer quantity and quality of life saving technology and drugs that our system has produced. Students come here from other countries to learn their trade, because we have the best facilities, technology, and the best medical minds training these future doctors and nurses.

 

Government brings nothing to the table but bureaucracy and red tape. I'll give you a current example Cash For Clunkers (C4C). All the government had to do was to disperse $3 Billion dollars to auto retailers and they can't even do that right. The retailers complained of cumbersome paperwork (13 page application) and slow turnaround getting cash back for money they have paid out in the hundreds of thousands. It has gotten so bad, the New York Automotive Association have discontinued the program because many of their dealers are operating in the red. In the 7 weeks C4C has been in effect, only $140 million, or about 7 percent of the claims out of $1.9 Billion dealers submitted nationwide, have actually been paid.

 

Just apply this to healthcare. How long before medical practitioners, hospitals, and clinics will opt out because they can't get paid? Eventually, and the "check is in the mail" doesn't pay the bills to your suppliers.

 

2. Why are we the only nation in the world that allows insurance companies to deny coverage because of pre-existing conditions?

So, if I go and wreck my uninsured new car, and then show up at an insurance company demanding they cover my car after the fact....How dumb does that sound?

 

3. Why do Republicans say that a government run health insurance system will be more costly than a private system when actual administrative costs for Medicare are just 3% of the total expenditure and for private insurers are 14% of the total?

The agreed upon number of uninsured Americans is around 45 million or roughly 15.3% of the US population of 300 million, so that would mean there are 255 million that currently have private health insurance. In 2007, persons 65 or older on Medicare totaled 37.9 million which means that private companies are handling 6.7 times the number of people on Medicare. If you do the math, they are actually more efficient than Medicare.

 

4. Why do Republicans claim that private insurance companies are better run than any government system would operate but then whine that a government system would be too efficient for private insurers to compete against? President Obama insists that a public system must be self-sufficient and not subsidized by taxpayers so it would be a level playing field.

This is such a loaded question because I've never heard the words "government" and "efficiency" used in the same sentence before. Tell me what government program or GSE is efficient? Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have gone to the government coffers three times since their initial bailout last fall. The US Postal Service is a joke, and I don't have to tell anyone how inferior the public education system is. We spend $10,000 per student - almost twice as much as any other country - and rank towards the bottom year after year. Amtrak? I can go on and on if you would like.

 

This is not an efficiency question but a monopoly question. The government has unlimited resources and will tailor the laws that will always give the government company unfair advantage eventually squeezing out the competition. This isn't about competition but control. How long would you think it would take before the controlling political party uses the GSE to create their own political fiefdoms?

 

5. Why are 31% of health care costs in the U.S. spent on administrative expenses while less than half of that expense occurs in single payer government run systems around the world? Over $1000.00 per person per year is spent on health care administrative costs in the USA.

Population. 300 million vs. France 61 million, Canada 30 million, England 60 million ect. ect. ect. It's comparing 1 big apple to a bunch of small grapes.

 

6. Why do we rank 37th in overall quality of care and 72nd in overall health of 191 countries evaluated? The facts are that virtually every nation with universal care spends far less on their health care than we do with far better results.

Check cancer survival rates in those countries. They rank far far less. Again the method the WHO went by getting the numbers have been disputed by many organizations explanation denoted in asterisks.

 

7. Why do French men live three years longer than American men? Don’t they drink a lot, smoke a lot, and eat rich food? Could it be that their health care is far better than ours?

They also work less. Genetics plays a factor also. The statistics here are skewed because the murder rate and traffic fatality rate is also higher in the US which is reflected in the study. Again we're comparing on great big apple to tiny grapes.

 

8. Why, if we have the most technology and spend the most money on health care, do we rank 29th in infant mortality rate? The rate our babies die in their first year is twice that of European nations. Why is it acceptable to Republicans to kill our babies unnecessarily?

Most of these countries lack our advanced neo-natal care, so abortion is pushed at a higher rate if a fetal abnormality is discovered such as Down's Syndrome. Cuban's have a 1:3 abortion rate is why they rank higher in this category. According to the same study, places like Singapore and Oman rank higher than most industrialized countries. Yet, there's not a major migration of sick people from our crappy US healthcare to go there if it is so good.

 

9. Why would Republicans worry that a government bureaucracy would get between the patient and the doctor when they find it acceptable for private insurance companies do that right now?

You can change insurance companies. Once the government has complete control, there is no escape and no recourse.

 

10. Why, if Canadians have to come to the US for timely treatment as Republicans claim, are our border states’ hospitals not overrun with Canadians? Could it be that the vast majority of Canadians getting care in the US are doing so because they get sick during their 2-3 months as “snowbirds” in Hilton Head, Myrtle Beach, and West Palm Beach? Studies by legitimate independent researchers do not support the antidotal “evidence” in the GOP ads.

Explain why world leaders, entertainers, and others travel here for medical procedures rather than using their home country's "free" healthcare? Medical tourism to the US is a booming business.

 

11. Why are we are spending 50% more of our GDP on health care costs than any other nation? The average annual costs for countries with universal health care is 10% of GDP. France, with the best health care in the world, pays just 11% of their GDP versus our 16% of GDP.

I don't know where you get 50% more of GDP? It's more like 5%. Again population.

 

12. Why, if Republicans are concerned about costs for businesses and the government, do they support a system that spends so much more of our business profits and government receipts (taxes) on health care than all other countries?

What would change? All the same dynamics are here. Except now the government will own the labor of doctors, specialists, nurses, and violate the intellectual property rights of drug manufacturers. They will write laws giving the GSE advantages that the private sector will not have.

 

The President the other day tried to make a lame analogy comparing the Post Office with FedEx and UPS saying that they were competing quite well with the government, saying; "It's the Post Office that is having all the troubles.". A little known fact is the government tried unsuccessfully to give the USPS an unfair advantage over the other two companies by passing laws prohibiting FedEx and UPS from carrying First Class Mail. FedEx got around this by implementing it's guaranteed next day policy for delivering documents (pre fax machine days) which many businesses preferred than the normal 2-3 business days waiting for First Class Mail that USPS had.

 

13. Why, if adjudication costs are going down (a statistical fact), are malpractice insurance costs continuing to rise? (More profits for the insurance companies?!?!).

The legal and financial costs of medical malpractice in the U.S. amounted to about $17 billion in 2005, so I don't know where you came up with this. Follow the relationship between cerebral palsy and C-sections and you will understand. In 1985, then trial lawyer John Edwards won a settlement of 6.5 million dollars against a hospital and 1.5 million dollars from an OB/GYN doctor arguing that if a C-section had only been done for an unfortunate child, she would have been born without cerebral palsy. (He actually convinced the idiots in the jury he was channeling the unborn baby girl, Jennifer Campbell, who was speaking to the jurors through him.) This case set off a chain reaction of suits throughout the country, leading obstetricians to practice defensive c-sections. But curiously, there has been no change in the rate of babies born with cerebral palsy. As The New York Times reported: "Studies indicate that in most cases, the disorder is caused by fetal brain injury long before labor begins." All those Caesareans have, however, increased the mother's risk of death, hemorrhage, infection, pulmonary embolism and Mendelson's syndrome. Until there is true tort reform, which there will never be because of the trial lawyer dollars in the political coffers of Democrats, malpractice insurance will be expensive. Their argument will be the patient suffers without a monetary claim. Then my question here is why do other countries have a "loser pays" system for adjudication, but we don't? But then again, campaign cash always cures that nagging conscience the Democrats may have.

 

In short, the threat of lawsuit causes doctors to order needless tests in order to cover their backsides which raises the cost of care to the patient.

 

14. Why do the top 5% of Americans use 50% of health care expenditures?

I don't know where you got this from...top 5%? It is true that 5 percent of the population accounts for the majority of health expenditures is because this accounts for the elderly who use the most expenditures the last 60 days of their life. Unless you want to call for a panel to say these people can't have that healthcare, because they're going to die anyway. Death panel anyone?

 

15. If our average American is getting “the best health care in the world” for an average insurance cost of $12,000.00; what do the Rolls Royce plans provide for $40,000.00? What is it that the wealthy are getting for their insurance dollars that the average American is not? Private rooms do not cost that much. Could it be that the best health care in the world is reserved for only the wealthy?

I don't know. Ask your legislators and their union buddies who will be exempt from the current plans being put together. They have the "Cadillac Plans." Let's see how Teddy Kennedy would have fared with his brain fart if he was taken to some run-of-the-mill clinic in the city instead of airlifted to Duke University, a private healthcare facility.

 

16. Why, if Republicans are worried about the bottom line, did they pass the Medicare drug bill without the ability to negotiate costs with drug companies? The result is that Medicare is paying 77% higher drug costs than other governments do.

Okay say we would do this. Will you take responsibility if those companies either (A.) Layoff thousands of workers or (B.) Move operations overseas. R&D is very expensive. BTW, Obama cut a deal with the pharmaceutical industry banning foreign imports of drugs. Of course, after this leaked, they denied it.

 

I am betting they made the deal back in March along with the go ahead by the AARP, which they have denied now, because the backlash by their membership was far greater than they imagined.

 

17. Why, if Republicans are worried about deficits, did they pass the Medicare drug bill without a means to pay for it? President Obama has said that health care reform will be budget neutral and has reinstated PayGo requirements for congress. (PayGo = all new expenditures must be balanced by reductions elsewhere or paid for by new revenues).

Conservatives all over did not support the Medicare drug bill at all and fought against it. Why do you think most Conservatives stayed home instead of voting in 2006? They were acting like Democrats spending money they didn't have.

 

Pleeeease...Pay go...Don't make me call you naive. The CBO has already said the health care bill would increase the federal deficit by $239 billion over the next 10 years. Medicare already has $54 trillion in unpaid liabilities. Social Security has $18 Trillion in unpaid liabilities. Enough said.

 

18. Why are we one of only two countries in the world that permits television advertising of prescription drugs?

Why not. They are companies advertising a product that is legal the last time I checked.

 

19. Why do Republicans say that there are ways of taking care of the problems with the health insurance industry and delivery of care other than what the Democrats want to do, yet they offer no actual plans that stand scrutiny?

They have several plans. In order to get a bill out of committee it has to have a Democratic sponsor. The Democrats decided in January that any Democrat who works with any Republicans would be punished. See Jane Harmon.

 

When the Republicans gained control of the House in 1994, Newt Gingrich passed a rule allowing for unlimited floor amendments as a goodwill gesture to the minority party so they wouldn't be shut out of the process as they were years before 1994. Committee Chairmanships were term limited to three terms so politicos couldn't establish individual fiefdoms in their areas of jurisdiction as was the case before then. The recommit motion was another way the House minority could slow progress of a bill, and it had been in place for over a hundred years.

 

Pelosi repealed everyone of those rules effectively shutting the Republicans out of the process.

 

20. Why, if Republicans have a better way of fixing health care as they claim, did they not do it during the Bush administration?

They learned not to touch third rail issues since the failure to reform Social Security. Bush outlined a plan that was favorable to the younger voters by being able to invest part of their accounts in a 401K type plan, but Democrats mobilized the AARP and other senior groups to defeat the bill. Kind of ironic really, because the same groups - AARP excluded, but not their membership - are mobilizing to kill this bill. When you propose to fund your bill by taking a half of a trillion dollars out of Medicare over ten years, it has a tendency to piss the old people off, and they reliably vote every election cycle.

 

21. How do we claim a higher moral standing than others when we find it acceptable to make a profit on the misery and illnesses of our citizens when all other nations believe it is morally reprehensible to treat their people that way?

Pleeeeease. Communists, Maoists, and Marxists killed hundreds of millions just because of political dissension. Now they find "so-called" morality and compassion? Wasn't it Democrats who kept whining about the right trying to legislate morality? Well there you go, I don't want to legislate morality.

 

In all seriousness, you're not talking about contribution but coercion. There is a big difference between "I will help someone" voluntarily and "You will help someone" enforced by threat of law.

 

22. Why are the same “moral and Christian value” politicians who stopped health care reform fifteen years ago still putting insurance companies and private for-profit providers ahead of the citizens they claim to represent?

I'm agnostic, but I figure the Christian's Jesus would not want capitulation enforced by the sharp tip of the Roman's spear.

 

****Many of these questions are derived from a report by the WHO in 2000 which is suspect and has been disputed by many independent studies. It's composite index of overall performance includes patient satisfaction and the accessibility of health care to low income and elderly people. But no actual patients or citizens of these countries were surveyed. Rather, the report relied on a survey of public health experts, many of whom did not reside in the countries whose responsiveness to patients and the poor they were rating.

 

Some of the questions here seem to mirror those of the created straw man DNC talking point of how the insurance companies and big pharma are ginning up the opposition to this bill which is not happening unless they want to be blacklisted. Let's take a look who's really in the pockets of whom.

 

In the 2008 election cycle health insurance companies donated $1.425M to Barack Obama, they donated $575,746 to Hillary Clinton. They gave $427,228 to John McCain. All told, health insurance companies gave 73% of all their contributions to Democrats. So I will oppose this attempt at centralized control of 1/6 of our nation's economy on my own objections to it. As for the insurance companies, they made their bed throwing in with the Democrats, and they can deal with the consequences.

 

In the 2008 election cycle pharmaceutical companies donated $2.125M to Barack Obama, $665,422 to John McCain, and $645,745 to Hillary Clinton. All told, the pharmaceutical industry gave 66.9% to Democrats and 33.1% to Republicans.

 

Oh, big surprise! Obama reaches an $80 Billion deal with Big Pharma. What the MSM is hiding from this story is this deal bars the government from negotiating lower drug prices. Omigosh, the same thing Bush was criticized for when passing the Medicare Drug Prescription bill. At least Pharma received a good deal for that $2.125M in campaign cash for Hope and Change.

 

Those big hospitals the Democrats like to demonize for charging exorbitant fees donated $3.34M to Barack Obama, $950,277 to Hillary Clinton, and $727,904 to John McCain. All told, the Hospital/Nursing Home industry gave 75.9% to Democrats and 24.1% to Republicans.

 

Democrats have the majority in the House and a super majority in the Senate. What's the hold up? They can pass any bill they want. PASS IT ALREADY and quit playing politics. They're too chicken sh!t to pass anything without "bipartisan" cover. If they happen to ruin the US healthcare system without Republicans to blame, then maybe they might be able to run for dog catcher in say 50 or 60 years after the electorate has forgotten.

 

Good post sarge 87. I don't agree with everything you are saying (and if I can find the time I will try to address a few things) but you did a good job of arguing your points.

 

Off the top of my head . . .

 

Number 5. What does total population have to do with this? M-247 provided the percentage of medical costs that goes towards medical administration in the US. He said that the percentage in other countries was lower. The only way the total population would affect medical administration costs is if he cited the TOTAL amount devoted to administrative costs . . . not the percentage of administrative costs compared to the whole.

 

Number 6. You say that the WHO organizations numbers are suspect (which I agree . . . they might be). However, then you go on to say that we should check cancer survival rates. Why the focus on cancer survival? Is it because it's one of the few areas where the US leads?

[Husker_x]

Democrats have the majority in the House and a super majority in the Senate. What's the hold up? They can pass any bill they want. PASS IT ALREADY and quit playing politics. They're too chicken sh!t to pass anything without "bipartisan" cover. If they happen to ruin the US healthcare system without Republicans to blame, then maybe they might be able to run for dog catcher in say 50 or 60 years after the electorate has forgotten.

 

Well Sarge, I think you just demonstrated how blitzkrieg works in a debate format. Well done.

 

I'll just reiterate your last sentiment here: there is nothing stopping democrats from passing anything except democrats. All the fault for holding up socialism is the socialists who wish to socialize it. Republicans have nothing to do with it. Obama's mewling on television the past few weeks has only served to bury the thing deeper. The facts are these: our president doesn't have a plan––he delegated to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid who have multiple plans. None of which anyone except certain elements in the media and town hall protestors seem to have read. The plan Obama doesn't have nobody wants to begin with. And the senate won't pass a bill with a public option; the house won't pass one without it.

 

So, merry gentlemen, the fault lies with Obama. Obama destroyed his own healthcare proposal by his own hand and his own reckless spending beforehand. At this point even if he did manage to ram the plan through (his original intent, by the way, which was not in any definition bipartisan) by splitting the bill into two pieces of legislation, it'll be a pyrrhic victory. The republican blame game is laughable.

[sarge87]

Good post sarge 87. I don't agree with everything you are saying (and if I can find the time I will try to address a few things) but you did a good job of arguing your points.

 

Off the top of my head . . .

 

Number 5. What does total population have to do with this? M-247 provided the percentage of medical costs that goes towards medical administration in the US. He said that the percentage in other countries was lower. The only way the total population would affect medical administration costs is if he cited the TOTAL amount devoted to administrative costs . . . not the percentage of administrative costs compared to the whole.

 

Number 6. You say that the WHO organizations numbers are suspect (which I agree . . . they might be). However, then you go on to say that we should check cancer survival rates. Why the focus on cancer survival? Is it because it's one of the few areas where the US leads?

On the #5 question: I'll have to revisit my thinking on that one as I may have misunderstood what it was asking for.

 

On the #6 question: The whole problem with this study, at least to my thinking, is that they are giving more weight to egalitarianism than to actual statistics which totally conflates the study. You can't compare the US to any other country in the world, because we are truly unique.

[rawhide]

I think if the gov't would give me 1mil to study the problem I could come up with a solution to make at least 50% of the people happy. Pretty cost effective from my point of view.

 

 

How much has been spend without even that kind of guarantee?

 

 

GBR

 

 

oops forgot the gratuitous

 

 

 

[sarge87]

Good post sarge 87. I don't agree with everything you are saying (and if I can find the time I will try to address a few things) but you did a good job of arguing your points.

 

Off the top of my head . . .

 

Number 5. What does total population have to do with this? M-247 provided the percentage of medical costs that goes towards medical administration in the US. He said that the percentage in other countries was lower. The only way the total population would affect medical administration costs is if he cited the TOTAL amount devoted to administrative costs . . . not the percentage of administrative costs compared to the whole.

 

Number 6. You say that the WHO organizations numbers are suspect (which I agree . . . they might be). However, then you go on to say that we should check cancer survival rates. Why the focus on cancer survival? Is it because it's one of the few areas where the US leads?

On the #5 question: I'll have to revisit my thinking on that one as I may have misunderstood what it was asking for.

 

On the #6 question: The whole problem with this study, at least to my thinking, is that they are giving more weight to egalitarianism than to actual statistics which totally conflates the study. You can't compare the US to any other country in the world, because we are truly unique.

I'll give you an example from the questions. Let's revisit the infant mortality rate question again. The study says we rank #29th in the world. Did you know, nearly 40% of newborns in the US are to unwed mothers and most are to teenagers? African American babies die at a higher rate than whites which would lend credence to poverty levels and lack of insurance, but babies born to Hispanics - South American, Mexican - have a lower death rate than whites and African American babies which would fly in the face of that theory as they are by and large in the same socioeconomic group as African Americans. It was just a preconceived notion that low birth weights were connected to poverty, but the evidence doesn't back that up. The whole pretense here about this debate is if everyone had health insurance then everyone would be healthy. Not every healthcare issue is about healthcare at all. It's about every day habits: smoking, obesity, drinking, substance abuse, many of which are known to be contributing factors to low birth rate.

 

There's the crux of this whole debate in itself. In a free country, we are free to do as we choose as long as we don't infringe upon another's rights. How can you dictate to someone who's free, to change their habits or else? Can we tell the gay man he can't have unprotected sex, because he may contract a deadly STD, or for that matter, promiscuous sex in general to heterosexual couples? Can we tell the welfare mother she needs to get up off her butt and exercise because she weighs 300 pounds and it isn't healthy? Do we start outlawing fast food, because some people can't control their eating habits. Do we outlaw alcohol, because someone may have the propensity to abuse it? It's already the accepted norm to treat people who smoke as second class citizens. Who's next?

 

The whole point is all the insurance and healthcare in the world isn't going to do anybody good unless people start taking responsibility for themselves.

[SOCALHUSKER]

Good post sarge 87. I don't agree with everything you are saying (and if I can find the time I will try to address a few things) but you did a good job of arguing your points.

 

Off the top of my head . . .

 

Number 5. What does total population have to do with this? M-247 provided the percentage of medical costs that goes towards medical administration in the US. He said that the percentage in other countries was lower. The only way the total population would affect medical administration costs is if he cited the TOTAL amount devoted to administrative costs . . . not the percentage of administrative costs compared to the whole.

 

Number 6. You say that the WHO organizations numbers are suspect (which I agree . . . they might be). However, then you go on to say that we should check cancer survival rates. Why the focus on cancer survival? Is it because it's one of the few areas where the US leads?

On the #5 question: I'll have to revisit my thinking on that one as I may have misunderstood what it was asking for.

 

On the #6 question: The whole problem with this study, at least to my thinking, is that they are giving more weight to egalitarianism than to actual statistics which totally conflates the study. You can't compare the US to any other country in the world, because we are truly unique.

I'll give you an example from the questions. Let's revisit the infant mortality rate question again. The study says we rank #29th in the world. Did you know, nearly 40% of newborns in the US are to unwed mothers and most are to teenagers? African American babies die at a higher rate than whites which would lend credence to poverty levels and lack of insurance, but babies born to Hispanics - South American, Mexican - have a lower death rate than whites and African American babies which would fly in the face of that theory as they are by and large in the same socioeconomic group as African Americans. It was just a preconceived notion that low birth weights were connected to poverty, but the evidence doesn't back that up. The whole pretense here about this debate is if everyone had health insurance then everyone would be healthy. Not every healthcare issue is about healthcare at all. It's about every day habits: smoking, obesity, drinking, substance abuse, many of which are known to be contributing factors to low birth rate.

 

There's the crux of this whole debate in itself. In a free country, we are free to do as we choose as long as we don't infringe upon another's rights. How can you dictate to someone who's free, to change their habits or else? Can we tell the gay man he can't have unprotected sex, because he may contract a deadly STD, or for that matter, promiscuous sex in general to heterosexual couples? Can we tell the welfare mother she needs to get up off her butt and exercise because she weighs 300 pounds and it isn't healthy? Do we start outlawing fast food, because some people can't control their eating habits. Do we outlaw alcohol, because someone may have the propensity to abuse it? It's already the accepted norm to treat people who smoke as second class citizens. Who's next?

 

The whole point is all the insurance and healthcare in the world isn't going to do anybody good unless people start taking responsibility for themselves.

 

Very true!! Also, using the infant mortality rate as an argument for universal healthcare is to assume that it's caused by lack of healthcare. Who says that the infant mortality rate is a 100% medical problem? Couldn't it also include sheer stupidity on the part of parents, caretakers, etc? Do the statistics take that into consideration?

[huskertim]

I think if the gov't would give me 1mil to study the problem I could come up with a solution to make at least 50% of the people happy. Pretty cost effective from my point of view.

 

 

How much has been spend without even that kind of guarantee?

 

 

GBR

 

 

oops forgot the gratuitous

 

 

 

 

So...for 2 million we could all be happy, I'm in.

[sarge87]

Good post sarge 87. I don't agree with everything you are saying (and if I can find the time I will try to address a few things) but you did a good job of arguing your points.

 

Off the top of my head . . .

 

Number 5. What does total population have to do with this? M-247 provided the percentage of medical costs that goes towards medical administration in the US. He said that the percentage in other countries was lower. The only way the total population would affect medical administration costs is if he cited the TOTAL amount devoted to administrative costs . . . not the percentage of administrative costs compared to the whole.

 

Number 6. You say that the WHO organizations numbers are suspect (which I agree . . . they might be). However, then you go on to say that we should check cancer survival rates. Why the focus on cancer survival? Is it because it's one of the few areas where the US leads?

On the #5 question: I'll have to revisit my thinking on that one as I may have misunderstood what it was asking for.

 

On the #6 question: The whole problem with this study, at least to my thinking, is that they are giving more weight to egalitarianism than to actual statistics which totally conflates the study. You can't compare the US to any other country in the world, because we are truly unique.

I'll give you an example from the questions. Let's revisit the infant mortality rate question again. The study says we rank #29th in the world. Did you know, nearly 40% of newborns in the US are to unwed mothers and most are to teenagers? African American babies die at a higher rate than whites which would lend credence to poverty levels and lack of insurance, but babies born to Hispanics - South American, Mexican - have a lower death rate than whites and African American babies which would fly in the face of that theory as they are by and large in the same socioeconomic group as African Americans. It was just a preconceived notion that low birth weights were connected to poverty, but the evidence doesn't back that up. The whole pretense here about this debate is if everyone had health insurance then everyone would be healthy. Not every healthcare issue is about healthcare at all. It's about every day habits: smoking, obesity, drinking, substance abuse, many of which are known to be contributing factors to low birth rate.

 

There's the crux of this whole debate in itself. In a free country, we are free to do as we choose as long as we don't infringe upon another's rights. How can you dictate to someone who's free, to change their habits or else? Can we tell the gay man he can't have unprotected sex, because he may contract a deadly STD, or for that matter, promiscuous sex in general to heterosexual couples? Can we tell the welfare mother she needs to get up off her butt and exercise because she weighs 300 pounds and it isn't healthy? Do we start outlawing fast food, because some people can't control their eating habits. Do we outlaw alcohol, because someone may have the propensity to abuse it? It's already the accepted norm to treat people who smoke as second class citizens. Who's next?

 

The whole point is all the insurance and healthcare in the world isn't going to do anybody good unless people start taking responsibility for themselves.

 

Very true!! Also, using the infant mortality rate as an argument for universal healthcare is to assume that it's caused by lack of healthcare. Who says that the infant mortality rate is a 100% medical problem? Couldn't it also include sheer stupidity on the part of parents, caretakers, etc? Do the statistics take that into consideration?

The statistics do not take this into effect. That is why the whole WHO study has been under scrutiny. If a baby would happen to die by neglect, or by SBS which is a homicide, the death would still be counted towards the mortality rate.

[sarge87]

The answer to whether or not you will be able to keep your own physician?

 

Majority Doctors Say They Will Not Accept Government Plan Patients

 

Perhaps this is why a nationwide, nonpartisan poll of physicians this month found that a full 70 percent oppose the health care reform proposals under consideration by Congress. Sixty-six percent feel that a government-run health insurance plan would restrict doctors' ability to give the best advice and offer the best care possible to their patients. Perhaps most importantly, 60 percent said they would not accept new patients covered by a government insurance plan.

 

Nearly all the doctors polled have worked with Medicare. Most have likely been denied Medicare reimbursement, or given minimal reimbursement, for a course of treatment that they prescribed that best fits the needs of a patient and that patient's family. They know that government coverage does not allow for flexibility, creativity, or, sometimes, even compassion.