The GOP-encouraged, right wing media-inflamed, health care industry-funded mobs engaged in shouting down Democratic congressmen and Senators at town hall meetings presents us with a new low from a party I thought couldn’t sink any deeper. The goal, of course, is to defeat health care reform by drowning out the support with a wall of noise.
It’s hard to understand exactly what enrages these people. Yes, they’ve been fed a steady diet of misinformation about the proposed reform–told that this is a government takeover of health care (it’s not), that it’s socialism (no), that it’s a step toward single payer (not even close), that people will lose their ability to choose their own doctor (as if they actually had that)– but something else is stoking the fury. Some of it, I suspect, is lingering resentment over losing the election, some of it is fueled by the covert racism underlying the Birther movement, and much of it is fear of change fed by Republicans who simply wish to hand Obama a defeat and by the insurance and drug industries that don’t want any change in their cash flow. As usual, they’ve managed to persuade a lot of people to oppose their own self interest
The unholy alliance of the health care industry and their Republican enablers offer nothing but a return to the status quo that has shut tens of millions out of access to health care. And they’re doing it with a disgusting return to the ugly, divisive politics that were so thoroughly repudiated by the Obama election.
You are jumping to a conclusion that the Republican Party is behind the people wanting answeres before the Democrates and Obama spend Trillions on something that they do not as yet have down in writeing. I think you are being a little harsh. The American people can think for themselves and are very tired of the congressmen and senators telling them whats good for them. What would be good for us all is to have what the congressmen and senatos have for healthcare. And have the same retirement plan they have would be wonderful. Even Obama is going to have a nice retirement in 4 years.
Get Real the plan has flaws it is covering illegal aliens. We should pick them all up and throw them All out YES 12 million out. Then start traing in the inner city schools trades like carpenters and bricklayers, plumbers , etc. to replace them so they can have jobs rather then sell drugs and guns. Then they would have some self respect and maybe not kill each other. Now we are just importing another group to Kill each other in our cities quit putting your head in the sand.
While the Democrats are spending trillions on something that is not down in writing, you seem to know exactly what’s in it. How is that? How do you know it will cover illegal aliens? In any case, I believe that the health costs of illegal aliens are already being paid by all of us today. Not to get side-tracked but if employers didn’t give them jobs, they wouldn’t be here. We do like our cheap chicken, mowed lawns, houses and nannys. It’s kind of like complaining about all the jobs lost in America while you’re standing in line to get into Walmart.
I’m beginning to wonder if the American people CAN think for themselves, especially the Seniors. Here we have a group of people collect Social Security and have had health care guaranteed (and paid for) by the government for 44 years and they are some of the most vocal at not wanting the rest of America to have the same privilege. What is that all about?
Well,
Being one of those seniors who was required to pay into both the Social Security and Medicare all my life into what was suppose to be a “Trust Fund” that would assure me that the system would be funded for the retirement years. But the government stole the money from the “Trust Fund” to be used or fund other things. Your lack of knowledge about Social Security and Medicare is showing. The government isn’t giving me anything.
My wife and I pay $97.50 each a month for medicare for our Medicare Insurance and then we have to purchase additional insurance to cover what Medicare does not cover such as medications. Additionally, Medicare has a $135/year deductible for each of us as well as a $200 deductible for each of us on our Medigap insurance. So, before Medicare pays a dime for my treatment at a doctor’s visit I pay the first $335.
We have to pay a co-payment for every drug we purchase and I only take two and my wife has several but the government isn’t giving us nothing we both worked our whole lives and paid into the system as you are today and as well as any working person.
Also the government collects income taxes on the first 85% of our Social Security Income. So, your lack thinking that we (seniors) are getting something for free is a fantasy because someone has to pay and we have paid but the government stole the money and replaced it will IOUs called Treasury Notes that are sold to China and others to fund the system. If the government had not stole the money and left it in the Trust Fund then the Social Security would be self-funded. Now as for Medicare it has been underfunded from the get go and is getting worse because of all the additional people put into the system that are not seniors but needing care.
I suggest you study up on the subject before you shoot off a reply without the facts.
Dale,
Glad to hear from you. Unfortuantely, I was trying to understand why you would be against health care reform but such is life.
It may surprise you but I actually do have a bit of knowlege on the subject, I too collect Social Security. I have to admit, I don’t pay income taxes on the first 85% as we don’t have an income high enough to hit that bar, though.
My point on SSA/Medicare was that they are government created and administered programs. My comment about government paid for was dealing with Medicare and you acknowledge that it is not self funded. To my knowledge, the only non-seniors eligible are those that are on Social Security Disability. They paid their FICA taxes for at least 10 years and had to wait 2 years after becoming diabled. Medicaid is a separate program and is not funded by FICA Taxes. I never stated that Seniors were getting SSA/Medicare for free. Health care reform is not just about getting health care for free.
You mention the premiums/decuctibles you pay. Wow, where can I get a deal like that? My COBRA premiums for my wife and I are close to $1000/month with each of us having a $2000 deductible and a $30 co-pay for a Dr. visit. And you have a co-pay for your medications? Wow. I get no prescription benefit, my Spiriva costs a fortune but luckily the rest of our medications are generic. My COBRA runs out 12/1/09 and then I have no insurance at any price for 15 months until I am eligible for Medicare.
The “Trust Fund” has always been a myth. It has been a pay-as-you-go programs from the beginning. But, whether is exits or not is irrelevant. It’s bookkeeping and certainly has absolutely no impact on your benefits. You may believe “The government isn’t giving me anything” but I can guarantee you that is simply not a true statement by any measure you would like to use. I’d be interested in where you can get the benefits you get at the price you paid/pay. I can show the info to my grandkids (and even kids, given the shapes their 401Ks are in).
The subject, though was that you have guaranteed health coverage, just because you are 65 (and it’s not even needs based). Why are you entitled and those not yet 65 not?
Jerry,
I am not against healthcare reform, I am against giving even the system we have to everyone because we cannot afford it. When you turn 65 you will have what I have. I am sorry that you must have lost your job and are stuck with Cobra. I was fortunate that when I lost my job at age 61 my wife was a school teacher and I could switch to her insurance. We had to survive on my early retirement pay and her salary until I turned 62 and could start taking my Social Security.
It is sad that our government has created such horrible systems and have allowed them to continue. Yes, it is only the disabled that have been added to the system but there have been abuse of that and that is not to say that there are not those who deserve some care.
But Jerry life is not equal because we all have different situations and at least you are able to pay the cost to afford the cost of your insurance and buy your medicine. I just hit the treshhold to pay the 85% on my benefits which I think is unfair. Why should you who are below the treshhold not have to pay and I do. It was the Dems with Al Gore’s tie-breaking vote that did that to me.
I don’t know what the answer is but it isn’t the proposal that I have heard about or the existing system. A single payer system I am afraid will wreck our healthcare and the quality will go down. The current system with the very low payments to hospitals and doctors (about 25% of what is billed and this is just my review of the quarterly statements I receive from Medicare) will lead to more doctors leaving the practice and our hospitals are at or near bankruptcy now. I was a missionary trip last month with a doctor doing family practice and he has to limit his Medicare patients to 30% of his practice or he will not make it. He had to increase his patient load for 20 per day to 30 per day. You will find that it will be hard to find a doctor that will accept you if you are on Medicare. Just as I turned 65 my family doctor left practicing medicine and I had to search to find a doctor that would accept me and it is a Uuniversity of Tennessee Medical System doctor or I would have to agree to pay a doctor the difference between what Medicare and my Medigap insurance would pay and that would be prohibitive and I have no choice on insurance. I have to use Medicare as primary and my supplement as secondary. I am concerned that if the Medicare system was given to everyone it would be very prohibitive in cost or many doctors would leave the practice.
It is not an easy answer, my daughter and granddaughter were vitually uncovered with a cost of $500 a month with only three office visits allowed per year. We don’t want that either or do we want what you are under at the moment.
So, I am not some rich guy that has lots to spare.
The hallmark of the liberal movment is protests, sit in’s, speech interuptions, etc.
And now that the Dems find themselves on the recieving end of the protests, they dont like it.
Its hypocritical beyond belief.
Then to blame the protests not on pissed off Americans, but rather the GOP, Insurance companies, etc means there drinking thier own koolaid and have no idea what reality is.
Mr. Stien sinks to a new low himself, has he no idea what that America is foudning on the idea of protests? Has he not bothered to learn some history and seen that protests and interuptiosn at townhalls meetings are old as the country itself?
Would you Mr. Stien support the silencing of the American people so that they could not be heard as to pass anything that you support?
No he dosent care because its against a cause that he suports, if these protests were against something he did not support, I would bet mooney all you would hear out of him is the sound of crickets.
Come on now, where is the fairness? Did Obama not call for vigerous debate on this subject?
Are we not suppose to attend these townhall meetings and voice our opinions?
Apparenty, Mr. Stien, Pelosi and the rest of the Dems only want your opinion if its in line with thiers.
This is sickening beyond belief and very anti-American.
Lastly, the final line Mr. Stien writes “ugly, divisive politics”
Mr. Stien, Can you look me in the face and say with all sincerity that Democrats have not ever engaged in “ugly, divisive politics” themselves?
I would advise you “to not cast stones in a glass house” Mr. Stien, you only make yourself look bad.
Voicing your opinion when it is your turn and shouting someone down so that they can’t voice there opinion is 2 different things.
Whoa, John! Really, now. I think I can speak for myself without you telling me what I support or don’t. For one thing, I’ve never advocated or supported disruptive protests at town hall meetings or political rallies. I’m pretty much a free speech absolutist, but I’m also a strong advocate of civil discourse. Perhaps I misremember, but I don’t recall incidents during the Bush administration in which the Democratic party and its economic supporters sponsored disruptive shout-downs at events at which elected Republican officials spoke. I’m sure the fringe morons and fanatics did, but that’s not what’s happening here. It’s been pretty thoroughly documented that the shouting heads of the right have encouraged these tactics, along with a number of Republican party officials, and that several health insurance and pharmaceutical companies have sponsored these protests. If you can document deliberate disruptions like these orchestrated by the Democratic party , please do. I doubt you’ll be able to. Anyway, “You’re one, too” is the lousiest argument there is. And in my case, it’s untrue.
But aside from that, I don’t want this website to become a shouting match, and I strongly advise commenters to speak to the issues at hand and not insult the contributors to the conversation. I keep removing posts that are simply personal attacks and have nothing whatever to do with the subjects at hand, and I was tempted to remove this one for the same reasons. I do blame the right-wing blowhards for injecting this level of personal acrimony into the debate, and it’s been picked up by the general public as though it’s legitimate argumentation. It’s not.
John, there’s nothing hypocritical about denouncing tactics I believe to be disruptive of the democratic process, and I’ll continue to do so. I’m dismayed that more Republicans are not embarrassed by what’s happening to the debate over health care. Maybe they all have investments in the companies that make blood pressure medications.
I received this note yesterday. I thought it deserved to be part of the conversation, so I’m posting it and my reply. –Ed
Dear Mr. Stein
You stated within the text underneath the cartoon: (he quotes the entire text)
So let me enlighten you. My concerns which are not GOP-encouraged, right wing media-inflamed or health care industry-funded are first and foremost that the costs estimates of 1 to 1.5 trillion over 10 years are not anywhere close to the same planet as the actual costs. I have yet to see an cost estimate by the US government which was not extremely low. My prediction is 2 to 3 times for the first couple of years and then 10 times thereafter. Why, because the congress will not hold the line when grandma can’t get her new hip or grandpa needs a bypass. Congress might pass a reasonable program (not likely but I’ll entertain the possibility) but as they have in every program ever instituted they will continually modify and expand the program. Case in point is that Medicare when instituted was predicted to cost 12 Billion in the year 1990, it’s actual cost was over 100 billion.
The second is the idea that an unelected board will determine what is and is not covered. There have been many of the proponents of this plan who are already taking about reductions due to “over usage” of the current system. This is called rationing whether it is accomplished by long lines or results based approved procedures. Let just say that if this system is so good why did every democrat vote against joining the system themselves? Should you or yours be found to not qualify for a procedure due to results based finding, wait for treatment which the results are based on timeliness or quality of life, or you must wait even to see a specialist to determine what is wrong, I not sure you will be so happy to assume the government has your best interests at heart. Now my personal opinion is that congress will not have the guts to maintain a line in these cases and will loosen the purse strings continuously when it comes to the difference between happy constituents and being reelected or losing a contribution and a vote.
The third reason is the control of health care by the government means there is no one to appeal to should you found on the short side of the equation and the fact it is being ram down my throat. What is the need for haste? Could it be that they know they cannot get this passed in an election year or when the population has the time to digest the plan and all it’s implications? I personally am also tired of the lies. The statistics that are bandied about cannot be supported with fact. The biggest one is that the American health system is anything but the best in the world. Look at the results of treatment in the US compared with any other country. The US leads in all categories of cancer survival rates as an example, but the US leads in most categories of availability and results of treatment. The top centers for organ transplants are all in the US. The US trains the World’s doctors. But to listen to the proponents (who only use statistics that include weighting for Universal Health care coverage) make the US sound like a backward third world country. They are lying and they know they are lying. The congress also keeps changing it rational to try to sell the program; the last cut is that it is to reign in the insurance companies, which polls well. So if you can prove they are lying why trust them? This is why, to answer you, that some rage is showing up.
The fourth reason is the question of why is tort reform not part of this plan? Malpractice insurance rates have been raised some four fold in the last 10 years. Why, because of the lawyers seeking unfounded awards for malpractice when in fact it did not happen. Are mistakes made, assuredly but sometimes things just do not go as expected. If the Doctor liable when a patient does not respond to treatment or in many cases when the medical advice is not followed? The lawyers would say yes, in fact at a meeting of the medical malpractice association, a speaker was booed from the stage for stating that every bad result should not be legated. The cost due to legation of every aspect of the medical profession and medical suppliers adds a large percentage to the total cost of healthcare. But the politicians are largely lawyers and not about to cut their own throat or those of their friends.
I realize that this message is likely falling on deaf ears, but I thought your tirade needed a response. I will leave this with a challenge, if you can find a single program that once the government took control of that became more efficient, cheaper or even more fair, tell us about it in your editorial cartoon. I really like to see that.
BTW, I am neither a doctor or connect to the health care industry in any way and I am not a Republican although I am politically conservative. So your labels do not apply to me and I am enraged.
Rick SnyderSmith
My reply:
Hi, Rick.
Thanks for your note. Let me answer as best I can. Let’s take the last question first. I’m always a bit miffed when people try to equate the efficiency of government programs to private industry, as though they were in any way comparable. Government generally take scare of things private industry won’t or can’t. because the goals are different. The purpose of, say, the Post Office is to deliver mail to everyone. The purpose of, say. FedEx is to make a profit by delivering stuff. The Post Office has to serve, by definition, unprofitable routes at a loss. Social Security exists because there was and is no comparable national pension in private industry–and there shouldn’t be. The same with Medicare; it exists because there’s no way to medically insure older people at an affordable price without a public subsidy. In other words, the whole efficiency question is, to my mind, a red herring. There’s no way to build and maintain an interstate highway system or the American military privately and equitably.
Now, having brought up Medicare, let’s talk about your fears of an unelected board determining treatments. I don’t know if you’re familiar with the Dartmouth Atlas, which documents regional differences in Medicare costs, and which has conclusively proven that the over-usage of medical procedures adds alarmingly to the cost of health care in many places, with NO MEDICAL BENEFITS. Every country with universal health care has a similar board advising doctors on which procedures are useful and which aren’t This isn’t “rationing,” it’s wise medicine. That we don’t have an independent agency helping determine whether, say, one should have a colonoscopy every 5 years or every 10, or whether certain heart conditions are treated as well by drugs as by open heart surgery, leads to over-use of costly medicine. WHat the Dartmouth Atlas has proven is that more treatments ins not better treatment. Most doctors, in fact, would welcome more information, not less. And would you prefer a partisan elected board to an independent one making these choices? I certainly wouldn’t. Those who call this approach rationing have succeeded in scaring you, which was their intent. Don’t buy it. And if you don’t think we already have rationing, how do you explain the 20,000 Americans who die of treatable illnesses because they don’t have adequate coverage, the 2 million annual bankruptcies due to medical costs, and the 1.5 million home foreclosures because people can’t pay their medical bills. No other Western nation has these problems.
Cost, of course, is a legitimate concern. Which is why we need the above-referenced board to help reduce costs without reducing the quality of care. Speaking of efficiency, the American medical delivery system is the most inefficient in the industrialized world, with 24% going to administrative costs, compared with an average of 3% in those countries with universal care. Why? Because they don’t have an army of adjusters whose job it is to deny you coverage. Because they have to insure everyone, those costs vanish. Those cost savings aren’t ever figured into the costs of reform.
You raised the specter of government controlled health care, which again is a large piece of misinformation. The addition of a public option is hardly government control. Most of us would retain our private insurance through our employers, and nothing would change for those people except the knowledge that if they lost their job or became ill, they wouldn’t lose their health insurance. The fear of government control is so overwhelming and so misdirected that that I’ve heard a number of people say they are afraid that Medicare will be taken over by the government.
As for the quality of care. By every measurable standard we come up short. We spend more per capita for worse results than anywhere else. You cite a few isolated statistics, but there are vital ones that are absolutely undeniable. We trail every other Western country in longevity, infant mortality and health outcome from treatment on average. Among underserved populations, the numbers rival those of the Third World. Why this is acceptable to anyone in this country is beyond me.
Finally, the critics of the bills currently in Congress (and I seriously doubt if you really know what’s in them, based on your letter) so far have offered no solution to the health care crisis. They simply oppose any change. For me, the status quo is unacceptable. It’s a moral issue. I find the status quo immoral, unethical and, in the case of those who oppose change solely to protect their bank accounts, evil. The real question for me is what kind of country we want to live in. One where 47 million people are uninsured, where if you lose your job you lose your insurance, where if you have a pre-existing health problem you can’t get insurance, where people die and go bankrupt because of our system? Or one like EVERY other wealthy nation, where everyone is insured, nobody goes bankrupt, and the health results are better on almost every measurable level. I’ll take the latter and figure out how to pay for it.
If you really want to inform yourself better (I needed to, and I’m still learning) I suggest that you read T.R. Reid’s new book, The Healing of America, a Global Quest for Better, Cheaper and Fairer Health Care. It’s extremely well researched and very readable, and explains how other countries have achieved their health care systems, their pluses and their downsides. Perhaps it will change your mind a little, or at least moderate your rage.
I remain outraged that we, alone among Western nations, can’t figure it out.
Dale,
I don’t know what you mean when you say we can’t afford it. Why not? What’s it going to cost? Is there a finite amount of money that we can spend or it it a matter of priorities?
I do have to agree with you that life is not equal. I have to say, it is mind boggling that you can say that on one hand (because your wife had access to insurance) and then turn around and think it is unfair that you have to pay income tax on 85% of your SSA because you have additional income (and at an outrageous 10-15% rate no less!!) and I don’t. As they say “Life is not equal”. I think that’s the same reason someone making a million $$ is paying a marginal rate of 35% and I’m paying only 15% – life is not equal.
Medicare (and health insurance co.) payments are a % of billed. Why do you think that is? Do you believe it costs the hospital to provide you the service for the amount they bill? I think they are trying to make up for the care they provided to the uninsured (or even under-insured)- so some of the cost is already here.
I absolutely agree with your concerns about GP doctors, as I live in a rural area. I agree that something should be done to correct the problems with their reimbursement rates.
We never have perfect systems and we shouldn’t be not fixing what we can simply because we don’t fix all the problems at once.
Jerry,
What I mean when I state that we can’t afford it is that under the proposed system in HR3200 that it will break us. Unfortunately, I don’t know if we can truly pay for everyones healthcare. I know the systems in Canada, UK, France, Sweden, etc. are pointed to as an answer. Maybe they are but many in those systems are unhappy with their systems either. There is not a perfect answer and there will be people that will be uncared for and/or receive inadequate care.
My wife has long been retired and I was only referring the gap between when I lost my job and when I could start receiving SS payments and then reach 65 to be put into Medicare. It isn’t a choice when you turn 65. The month I turned 65 I was removed from my wife’s insurance but was allowed to purchase Medigap insurance. My wife and I both pay income tax on our SS benefits and now she is on Medicare as well because as soon as she turned 65 her insurance dropped her and she was allowed to purchase Medigap insurance. You will understand the frustration of this as you turn 65 but if I understand your situation you are looking forward to being on Medicare to reduce your cost of insurance and medical services including prescription drugs. I have a friend that was in that situration and his insurance was very expensive and his drug (his wife is diabetic) cost were prohibitive and in his case he was glad to become eligible to enroll in Medicare.
Yes, my marginal tax rate is 15% or less but I do object to being made to pay taxes on my and my wife’s SS benefits. These benefits are taxed to pay for other government programs. I think the treshhold for collecting the taxes is very low – only have to have a combined total taxable income of $44,000 to be taxed at the maximum of 85% and our total income clears that hurdle and therefore we are taxed at the maximum on our benefits. Think we couldn’t use that extra 10 to 15%?
Yes, I do agree that the hospitals and doctors are trying to make up the cost of treating Medicare and Mediaid patients, and uninsured. Yes, some of the cost is already here and it is a serious problem for hospitals and doctors.
One of the major problems that is not addressed in any of the proposals is limit on medical liability lawsuits. This very issue forces a lot of treat and testing that does nothing for improved care. This is a difficult issue as well but it is part of the whole issue since the insurance to protect against it is very expensive adds to the overall cost of care with no benefit. Some of the awards have been outrageous.
I have enjoyed our dialogue hope things go well for you. But the proposed bills do not answer the problem and I believe will actually make things worst. There is a limit to the amount of money we can send to government to fund all the wants without losing some of the true needs. So, yes it is a case of priorities. We the people are not an endless source of money to supply the government to spend as they wish.
What has been missing for several decades is a true leader in position of the President who will truly exercise fiscal responsibility. Bush let Congress run wild with spending and Obama is doing the same and the Democrats are trying to break the bank with their spending. We desperately need a President that doesn’t feel beholding to Congress to let them run the show and actually make them toe the line on spending. Presidents only give lip service to controlling spending. So, what makes you think that they will control spending in healthcare. If the estimated cost is $1.2 trillion then you bet it will be 2 to 10 times that cost in the end and where will the money come from?
Dale,
Thanks for the thoughtful responses. I also agree with you regarding the issue with medical liablilty lawsuits. I did hear on Jim Lehrer last night that the issue with GP reimbursement rates was being addressed in legislation. As you and I also agree, it will never be perfect but disagree on going forward with what can be gotten now.
In terms of priorities, I think this is way above starting a war in Iraq, farms supports, corporate welfare, fighter jets we don’t need anymore, jets for or congressional folks to fly home on, cash for clunkers, bailouts for Goldman Sachs and Citigroup, and all the pork projects in all 50 States. It just seems that when we spend $3 trillion/year in the federal budget, that we can find the funds to provide reasonable health for all Americans. It seems all other modern countries can. We spend the most on health care but the WHO has our health care system ranked 37th in the world, right above Slovenia and after Costa Rica.
Jerry,
I agree with everything you stated in your last response. I just finished Robert Kaplan’s book, “Soliers of God, Warriors in Afghanistan and Pakistan.” Granted it is discussing the war in the 80’s when Russia invaded Afghanistan and the start of the Taliban in the mid-90’s. I was against us going to Iraq and I am really opposed to us continuing in Afghanistan. The ethnic groups in Afghanistan are far worse than in Iraq. Do you know that the Afghans have never been conquered and many have tried (British-three times, French, Turks, Moguls, Indians, Russia-twice and now us with NATO) and we trying to be the first and we will lose as well. I was disappointed to see President Obama decide to increase troops there and try to go for the win. I say get out and stop the bleeding of money that yes could be used for healtcare.
Those people in Afghanistan kill each other and everyone else without any concern what so ever. Far more than just Shia’s and Sunnies. Plus the terrian is much different and the Russians bombed them to pieces and still lost and lost 58,000 men in the process as well as 100’s millions of dollars in equipment. They slaughtered over 1.5 million Afghans by carpet bombing and laying millions of mines. We are not doing that but we are using a lot of fire power that cost a lot $$$.
I say get out and now.
I agree with you wholeheartedly:
http://www.costofwar.com/
It will be a trillion $$ pretty soon plus, of course, the deaths of 5000+ US soldiers and wounding of 30,000+.
This shows how awful these protesters have been…
http://www.zombietime.com/hall_of_shame/
[...] Republican Response August 12, 2009 | By admin In Humor | © Ed Stein Please [...]