Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiJoe Scarborough Is Shocked, Yet Awed by Single-Payer Logic
Something rather remarkable happened on Tuesday's Morning Joe. Rep. Anthony Weiner of New York pointed out that the health insurance industry has no clothes, and Joe Scarborough, after first trying to spin it some gossamer threads, broke down and said, By God, you're right, this emperor is a naked money-making machine!
Well, he didn't use those exact words, but Joe did seem to finally get that America has granted insurance companies the right to create bottlenecks in the financing of health care in order to extract profits out of the suffering of ordinary people--without providing any actual health care whatsoever.
"Why are we paying profits for insurance companies?" Weiner asked Scarborough. "Why are we paying overhead for insurance companies? Why," he asked, bringing it all home, "are we paying for their TV commercials?"
Weiner, who recently warned that President Obama could lose as many as 100 votes on a health bill if a public option is not included, really wants single payer--Medicare for all Americans is his goal. What a crazy, way-out, reckless notion, Joe went into their encounter believing. But Weiner asked some simple, direct questions that no politician, much less Obama or HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, has managed to pose:
What is an insurance company? They don't do a single check-up. They don't do a single exam, they don't perform an operation. Medicare has a 4 percent overhead rate. The real question is why do we have a private plan?
"It sounds like you're saying you think there is no need for us to have private insurance in health care," Joe asked at one point.
Weiner replied: "I've asked you three times. What is their value? What are they bringing to the deal?"
Scraping the bottom of a seemingly bottomless pit of spin, Joe is repeatedly left speechless, "stunned" and "astounded," he said, by the questions themselves. Indeed, when confronted with unfettered capitalism's massive failures, the right usually has nothing to say. The "free market" is supposed to eternally grow, not crash under its own greed. They're left ideologically crippled.
But unlike, say, Lou Dobbs, who began dobbering when confronted with similarly direct argument for single-payer, Joe was able to take a deep breath and return from a break with his eyes opened.
He even repeated Weiner's points clearly: The goverment would take over only the "paying mechanism" of health care, not the doctors or their medical decisions themselves. His ears perked up every time Weiner mentioned that the nonprofit Medicare spends 4 percent on overhead, while private insurers spend 30 percent.
And Joe, who has been criticizing mob rule at town halls, seemed to appreciate the way Weiner counters the fearmongering over Medicare: After decades of railing against the program's wasteful, "runaway" spending, Republicans have done a 180 and are now trying to scare seniors that the Democrats' proposed Medicare cuts will come directly from their medical care and not, as is actually proposed, from wasteful, stupid practices in the system--like, as Weiner mentions, putting people into a $700-a-night hospital bed when all they really need, and often prefer, is a visit by a homecare attendant in the two-digit-a-day range.
Maybe the real turning point came when Weiner asked, "How does Wal-mart offer $4 prescriptions?" Joe and co-host Mika Brzezinski looked as if they'd been thwacked by a hardback copy of Atlas Shrugged, and sat back to let the congressman explain it all to them:
They go to the pharmaceutical companies and say, "Listen, we have a giant buying pool here. You're going to give us a great deal."Who's bigger than Wal-Mart? We are, the taxpayers. Do we do that? No. Because we have outsourced this to insurance companies who don't have necessarily as much incentive to keep those costs down because, frankly, they are getting a piece of the action.
Progressives tend to understand this stuff, but many conservatives won't trust such logic, especially in the abstract, which is how most Dems have been communicating. But Weiner, aware that if you can't visualize something it ain't going to stick, argued with a specific, familiar visual--that of a successful, supercapitalist, and, as Mika might say, "real American" company. And suddenly, as the mote dropped from the MJ crew's eyes, Weiner went from "scaring American citizens," in Joe's words, to instant celeb.
"That was SO great!" said Mika, as she and Joe asked Anthony to please, please come back soon, this week if possible!
"You have succeeded in doing something that no one else has done on this show in two years," said Joe, his fists rapidly knocking the table in excitement. "You made me speechless. And you made me speechless because you so clearly came here and stated your position."
While maintaining that he and Weiner have "different worldviews," Joe nevertheless raved, "This is fascinating, and one of the problems with the president's message is that it's muddled." And, damn, that's true.
Could this episode herald a Single-Payer Awakening? Or is this just the thrill of logic running up Joe's leg, soon to be forgotten as corporate media try to undermine real reform of a system that feeds the nets millions in ad revenue? When the big mainstream players shouted in unison to prematurely declare the public option dead, I couldn't help but think: In the corporate media's total takeover of ideas, they, too, have a death panel--made up of three or four conglomerate owners and chaired by Rupert Murdoch--that will determine whether an idea lives or gets its plug pulled.
On Thursday, Morning Joe replayed Weiner's best hits, but Joe was occasionally dobbering himself, complaining that our health care problems come down to costs, costs, costs but "now all the President is talking about is a moral imperative." (Of course, Obama put morality on the table only yesterday; until then, he focused on costs, costs, costs.)
We'll see how far this relative openness to single-payer goes. In the meantime, though, the education of Joe Scarborough is, as always, a sight to behold:
94 Comments so far
Show AllA December 2008 CBO report concluded that the cost of private insurance companies is 10-12%. The other 20% that Rep. Weiner is referring to is the administrative costs hospitals and doctors incur in collecting payment from insurance companies. This 20% also applies to Medicare. So, Joe Scarborough was really being presented inaccurate information. Hard to say how he would have responded if told Medicare results in 24% administrative costs and private insurance 30% -- what do we get for the extra 6%?
I hope his eye opening experience isn't just a ploy to give the show higher ratings during sweeps.
I don't think his eyes were opened in the way the article suggests. I believe his excitement only came from the fact that he got Weiner to admit he wants a "government takeover of our medical system" - those are the fear-inducing words Joe wanted to hear. Believe me, he and other conservative talk show hosts are going to use snippets of that interview out of context to try to scare even more people. I don't know why the Nation could not see what was going on. I've seen Jon Stewart do it masterfully with slime such as Bill Cristol. Do you think the right has not been paying attention or they don't want to manipulate public opinion.
I hope I'm wrong, but I did no see Joe getting the "logic" of a single payer system - he was totally fixated on the "government takeover".
That's the first I've heard of the difference in overhead between Medicare and private insurers.
That shows, at least to me (others may have heard it before), how the discourse is usually tightly constrained.
Thank you Rep. Weiner.
I support a single payer plan.
And so do MAD AS HELL DOCTORS: http://www.madashelldoctors.com/
They say:
A Single Payer plan is the only real path to a Health Care System that is socially, ethically and fiscally responsible.
George C. Brown - Rep. Weiner knows what he is talking about, and is willing to stick his neck out and say it in plain language. I've about come to the conclusion it's not that the other Beltway legislators don't hear him or understand what he's saying, or what most of their constituents are requesting, but that they are literally "being fed" by the lobbyists who outnumber those 635 legislators by more than three to one at a rate of about $1.4 million dollars a day!
Absolutely. Most of these people had to make a lot of compromises to be able to ascend the ladder of power and get the financial backing they needed to get elected. It takes a lot of cojones to get all the way there and still resist the money and possibly threats coming at them from the corporocracy, and not many have it.
That is why probably the most important reform needed is campaign finance reform.
Let's face it. Our government is RIDDLED WITH CORRUPTION! And once it gets into the system, it stays! You can smell it all over the country!
Joe loves candor, because he may be the only conservative today that has it himself.
Actually, there are still quite a few decent conservatives around. You'll regularly find quite a few at antiwar.com and John Dean has his good points also.
George Markley's post above; August 21 4:13pm
You hit the bull's eye, George!
Well finally you see the light! I was afraid that too many did not understand the single payer concept, nobody in government does anything other than pay the bill, what ever that bill is. Cut the Insurance Company out(the only thing insured was their profit) and reduce health care costs by plus or minus 30%. Get the health care insurance out altogether (Big Pharma) and save even more, perhaps another thirty percent. Not bad, maybe there is hope after all.
If everyone who has a facebook or myspace site would forward this to their site, and their friends did the same, perhaps it would catch fire. I copied and pasted the entire bill HR 676 to Rep. Sam Graves facebook issue/comment section about the DirigoChoice healthcare problems in Maine. It's obvious that if only the elderly are covered(those that are the most expensive because they need the most care), and there are no youth, and basically healthy people covered. It can't hope to work. In order to work, a very large pool of people are needed. Rep.Graves R-Mo. is very adept at cherry picking information and presented a very biased report. I'm on his ass all the time on his web site-he sends out a weekly email to his subscribers, of which I am one. I suggest that everyone who has a Republican Rep., Senator, or a conservative Democratic Rep. or Senator, to badger them as much as possible, respectfully of course, we aren't teabaggers here, and if they have a facebook or myspace site, go there and get into the conversations. I am virtually the only Progressive that those Sam Graves lemmings hear. Keep the Faith!!! The chance for Single Payer will only end when we stop fighting for it!!
Sadly, there is absolutely no chance for a President Weiner. A rose by any other name, really any other name and he would have a shot.
i don't know about that. the guy does have backbone. might be as much relief to the electorate as change from bushisms to well-turned sentences to envision change from branding to substance, whatever the name.
I enjoyed this article..... had to look twice to make sure that it indeed came from "the Nation"....
Jennifer is correct about many working conservatives favoring a 'single payer'. Though I have great health care coverage, I'm certain that the single payer option would save me money. The extra "tax" has to be less than my premium....
Thank you for showing Representative Weiner express his clear vision. Its a breath of fresh air.
It also pointed out an irony. A friend of mine was screaming at me about all the evils of single payer. Turns out his wife is a federal employee, and he is one of the 40%! Selfish Mother@#*&er!
"A friend of mine was screaming at me about all the evils of single payer. Turns out his wife is a federal employee, and he is one of the 40%! Selfish Mother@#*&er!"
This happens so often it isn't even funny. Unbelievable numbers of rightwing Republicans are Fed/State employees, or somehow hooked into a government connected employment (like defense corporations). They put in their eight hours each day and go home, watch Glen Beck, and rail against the 'socialists' like me who think this nation needs a hard left turn. I've ALWAYS worked for private corporations, I've NEVER put in an eight hour day, I OFTEN work weekends, and I'm constantly aware of how my health insurance depends on my precarious employment (every corporation I've ever worked for made a point of threatening their employees with downsizing).
The fact is, if you have a cushy government or gov't-related job, you've got guarranteed employment (well, it used to be) and so why would you ever worry about your health insurance? Only people who are constantly threatened with downsizing understand what a potent threat lack of health insurance has become in the hands of unscrupulous employers.
another way of putting it is:
america is so full of "conservatives" who rail against SOCIALISM but whose lives DEPEND On socialist programs.......
they might as well have a case of Unrequited Hatred for their mothers.....except that they won't admit it...disfunctional minds...
is it any wonder these kind of people seem to live contradictions?
"pro-life but FOR capital punishment"...
"christian..BUT for Torture and Wars"...
"patriotic..BUT they don't like anyone that's not conservative enough"...
"racist...but see everything around them as reverse-racism"..
"don't like taxes....but accept welfare anyway"...
I wish Weiner was my rep!
"Indeed, when confronted with unfettered capitalism's massive failures, the right usually has nothing to say. The "free market" is supposed to eternally grow, not crash under its own greed. They're left ideologically crippled."
The Capitalist Right is headed by Corporations and the wealthy few who benefit from them. They are not fettered by an ideology, unless you consider naked greed and arrogance an ideology. The rank and file right wingers (who are not that many, not by a long shot) are dupes who swallow the propaganda of the wealthy wannabes who push the 'free market' illusion which has never worked for anyone except banker crooks and con men (Wall Street). These people are not ideologically crippled. They are dishonest bastards who have nothing to say when they are caught twisting the truth for their own ends. But they and their dupes sure can make a loud noise at Town Hall Meetings.
Death to Corporate Personhood!
Halalujia!!! This is what it should be all about! they get all the perks and just add the fines for laws they break into their cost of doing business
Halalujia!!! This is what it should be all about! they get all the perks and just add the fines for laws they break into their cost of doing business
The rank and file right-wingers are 90% of the Republican vote and ARE left crippled. If the wealthy capitalists were the only ones that voted Republican there wouldn't be a problem.
-
This is hilarious-of course insurance is the pay mechanism...don't conservatives even know what insurance is?!?
Wiener is openly a socialist-anything that's not a commodity should be in the public sector!!! Am I in the twilight zone??
Kucinich '12!!
RV August said...
"What is an insurance company? They don't do a single check-up. They don't do a single exam, they don't perform an operation. [...] I've asked you three times. What is their value? What are they bringing to the deal?"
Not to derail the conversation...but the exact same thing could be asked of banks.
What is a bank? What is their value? What are they bringing to the deal?
They don't lend their own money. They create it out of thin air thanks to your signature on a loan application and fractional reserves.
You, essentially, create the money...they lend YOUR money to YOU...and not only do they want that money back but they want you to pay them for the privilege.
They provide nothing of substance but yet they demand something of substance (collateral) should you fail to repay them the money that YOU, essentially, created.
In the same way the US government contracts out the handling of financing of the health care industry to money hungry profiteers...they contract out the creation of money to the money hungry profiteers of the banking cartels.
Meanwhile the masses wander along blissfully unaware of the amount of their money being given away (for no better reason than the ideology of capitalism) to those that already have more than enough of their own.
A dollar bill (or a "loonie" here in Canada) is no more a "commodity" than health care is and it's high time it was recognized as such.
EXCELLENTLY put!
yes, just as the american political system is a horrible, deranged and disfgured deception that must be exposed and destroyed, so is our financial system...there are a number of other systems that must be dealt with, as well...
My wife and I love our medicare. Two cardiac surgeries for me and two back surgeries for my wife, largely paid by medicare. Without medicare we'd be destitute. Why not medicare for all? The lives of our citizens vs. profits for insurance companies.???
My wife and I love our medicare. Two cardiac surgeries for me and two back surgeries for my wife, largely paid by medicare. Without medicare we'd be destitute. Why not medicare for all? The lives of our citizens vs. profits for insurance companies.???
My wife and I love our medicare. Two cardiac surgeries for me and two back surgeries for my wife, largely paid by medicare. Without medicare we'd be destitute. Why not medicare for all? The lives of our citizens vs. profits for insurance companies.???
HR 676 will pass. Do whatever you can to help out.
"What is an insurance company? They don't do a single check-up. They don't do a single exam, they don't perform an operation. [...] I've asked you three times. What is their value? What are they bringing to the deal?"
FINALLY! Someone asks the core questions that I've posted repeatedly and that seem to be ignored in the endless discussions about so-called "health care reform" that has absolutely nothing whatever to do with health care. It's ONLY about revenue handling and the "paying mechanism." Nothing else.
What "value added" benefit does the insurance industry provide to justify skimming huge profits from the processes of collecting and dispersing revenues involved in paying for heath care?
The answer, of course, is none at all. Not to patients. Not to doctors. Not to anyone. To the contrary, their incentive (and, in fact, their singular fiduciary responsibility) is to maximize their own profits by reducing benefits which they accomplish through administrative and other procedures that actually interfere with health care itself and with every aspect of access and delivery.
So why would anyone in his right mind advocate any kind of "reform" other than the total elimination of a "value subtracted" profiteering industry? Are Americans really so dedicated to the concept of capitalism for it own sake alone that they'll sustain private profits even when the returns are negative? Or are they just to stupid to handle simple arithmetic and even simpler logic?
Insurance companies have a lot more in line with communism than capitalism if you think about it.
What is insurance? Hordes of people pool their money ("from all according to their worth") and when one needs, because of fate ("to each according to their needs") more of the money...they get it.
The only capitalist part is, the gatherer uses the money in the meantime, gets profit from it, and then does it's utmost to find a way out of paying it when disaster hits.
Sounds like communism (as practiced in the soviet union), and like a pyramid scheme to me.
The underlying conceptual theories of insurance itself may include some vaguely socialistic aspects and there have been some efforts to establish insurance pools and co-ops on a not-for-profit basis. All of the current issues, however, relate to the actual corporate practices of the U.S. capitalist insurance industry which are about as far from socialistic, let alone communistic, as one could get.
If you really think that U.S. insurance companies operate on the basis of Marxian principles ("from each according to his ability, to each according to his need") you've obviously not had many real life dealings with them. You can be assured that neither your abilities nor your needs enter into their calculations at any point except in terms of their own profiteering.
I happened to miss that morning with Joe S, but yesterday C-span aired and re-aired the Barney Frank town meeting on health care. It was amazing - a real classic. I now have new-found faith in one congressman (on that one issue). The citizens were extremely rude and uninformed. That tape should be studied by neuropsychologists, historians, and comedians.
I also attended the health care meeting held by Bernie Sanders. It was a little more sane but not any more encouraging.
18,000 deaths every year because USAsians don't care about each other. This is an-every-man-for-himself type culture.
obviously, single-payer is preferable to any other healthcare plan either 'on' or 'near' the table at this point in \\Earth\America, but looming global economic and ecologic realities will soon rock any and all future plans of any kind that are based on income, or the taxes paid on such...
There are regular working class conservatives who support single payer out there too. They have to work out longer hours and tougher labor in this bloody economy and yet they too desire for getting Big Insurance out of the way especially when those premiums drive their blood pressure up.
You just have to frame it well so that they'll take it seriously. Enough liberal vs conservative divide. The current plan Obama is supporting doesn't even come close to single payer and conservatives can smell it ! Let's take single payer at its heart and win some sympathy. Start out with proving how it actually reduces governmental costs while the current privatized care doesn't. Talk about benefits for both the employer and employee. This is the basis for winning it for single payer.
JenniferBedingfield, am I right that what is currently expected to come out of Obama's office is a "co-op" plan? Handfulls of sick-people will be expected to join into co-ops and, somehow, negotiate with the multibillion dollar insurance firms in order to get the health care they need? Good luck with that.
If the bill doesn't get watered down any further, I presume. At the point however, I don't even want to know what will pass. In the end, all I think that's going to pass are thousands of pages of hot air for us and more pork and gravy for Big Insurance/Pharma. Once again, when it comes to health care, the US is one of the biggest laughing stocks ! Sigh. :.(
You know...when a factory closes in the US and puts hundreds or thousands out of work,and moves to china, malaysia or somewher, somehow this is all "just the free market", just how it should be.
So what is so holy about insurance companies? I am an american living in Norway, and have experienced both systems. You can find norwegians that complain, but they NEVER lived under the current US system. "Death panels"?? Insurance companies have them. The ways they weasel out on their contracts, the automatic denial of coverage claims, the things they will and will not "accept" procedures, etc.
In fact, no one knows how many people have died from having to go through the beaurocratic nightmare they put up (on purpose). You get diagnosed with something life threatening, just as you need all your focus to be on getting better, you go through the inhuman hoops and red tape, and voicemail, and being shunted from place to place, and the whole thing...I wonder how many folks literally lose the will, or the strength to fight their illness from it. In Norway, I get sick, I get taken care of. Have had an appendectomy that cost about 40 bucks out of pocket, and 4 day stay. In the US heard of a young girl short time after, 24,000 dollars in debt from the same procedure. She was advised to go bankrupt. Wasn't her fault, wasn't mine, but I got taken care of, she got screwed.
Like it was pointed out, it is kind of a pyramid scheme in reality..pretty close to communism in a very real way (except they rake off the top) in which everyone puts in their money, but only the "needy" get some back.
O A ,Tak ,tusen tak,i am a U.S. Medicaid patient. my own doctors ,good care no co-pays for meds.I had a double bypass and was lucky to be destitute at the time! Poverty can be a blessing if you can do the legwork to be included in the single payer system.You need an address so I squatted ,post office boxes do not qualify! peace
how much will national health care cost us????
NOTHING.......ZERO......ZIP
in fact it will save us
RIGHT NOW
OUR GOVERNMENT spends $3300.00 dollars per person per year on health care.........then the rest of us pay thousands more
in ENGLAND where they have national health care....their GOVERNMENT spends $2900.00 per person on healthcare
and THEY have universal coverage
so we ALREADY pay for UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE..... we just are not receiving it.....
why not???
You are correct, of course. Half of our health care is paid through government programs (VA, Medicare, Medicaid) and we spend twice as much per capita as the Brits.
Why not? Because the insurance industry is basically like the Mafia. We pay "protection" money and then don't get much of it back when we need protection.
The corporate right and their TV & radio mouthpieces-- and the undereducated Teabagger anti-government types who idolize them-- all yell about how they don't want their taxes to go up and how the government is inefficient and can't run anything.... they need to be reminded, often and loudly, that private industry, though efficient, is robbing you far worse than the government, and in addition, they don't give a damn about your personal welfare.
Hamster--Wonderful! Insurance is a protection racket. I wish some politician would pick up on this and run with it.
Rainborowe
"Something rather remarkable happened on Tuesday's Morning Joe. Rep. Anthony Weiner of New York pointed out that the health insurance industry has no clothes, and Joe Scarborough, after first trying to spin it some gossamer threads, broke down and said, By God, you're right, this emperor is a naked money-making machine!"
Bullshit. Scarborough never admitted as much and trying to spin it that way just serves to continue to muddy the waters.
Scarborough did admit that he was left speechless because he finally got what Weiner had been saying for 15 minutes, but he never ceded his ideological ground. Getting through to people who are wedded to an ideology is not that easy.
"I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their life."
- Leo Tolstoy
Words for us all to ponder.
how much will national health care cost us????
NOTHING.......ZERO......ZIP
in fact it will save us
RIGHT NOW
OUR GOVERNMENT spends $3300.00 dollars per person per year on health care.........then the rest of us pay thousands more
in ENGLAND where they have national health care....their GOVERNMENT spends $2900.00 per person on healthcare
and THEY have universal coverage
so we ALREADY pay for UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE..... we just are not receiving it.....
why not???
I'm glad Anthony Weiner is out there poking holes in all the BS re "government takeovers" of health insurance. More than anyone else (well, maybe Kucinich is good at it), he can bring much needed light to a completely obfuscated subject.
"Medicare spends 4 percent on overhead, while private insurers spend 30 percent."
So much for that axiomatic belief that government is inherently "inefficiient", and private industry being inherently efficient.
In the big-business world it's: more overhead and needless busines expenses = higher gross fees = higher profits. Plus, unlike a democratic (and nonprofit) government, ZERO accoutability to the consumer.
There should be nothing shocking about this. Recall how the recent high crude prices, a greater business expense and therefore an "inefficiency", leads to record profits for the refiners and distributors. Similarly, insurance companies are are motivated to deliberately seek what are effectively inefficiencies.
But what about market competetion? Well, absent a very large number of non-colluding sellers, like an Arab bazaar, where number of sellers approach the number of buyers, we don't get effective competetion. And achieving such a state of price competetion is impossible in insurance (and a lot of other things in modern econmomies) because insurance companies must be big because they rely on a large risk pool - or worse they engage in near-ponzi arbitrage schemes.
So, therefore, the biggest, safest, and cheapest risk pool can be provided by a democratic, accountable government.
QED
Private industry IS very efficient -- at one thing: keeping production costs down. They are very inefficient-- don't care at all, unless forced to-- about things like product safety, health and safety of consumers, worker safety and pay, protecting the health of the environment, etc, etc. So much for the "magic of the market". In the case of health insurance, they care as little as possible about actually delivering health care or keeping it affordable.
Yes, they brutally push prodiction costs down that they have power over, notably labor. But when the prices of their raw materials go up, or other expenses thay can safely pass on as higher prices, they use it as a profit opportunity.
And as a fed government employee, aside from a deceint retirement plan and vacation and sick leave benefits, we are pretty damn frugal. You should see the size of my cubicle and our supply of pens and pencils...
And don't forget, those million dollar salaries don't come from profits...those are deducted as "expenses" before any profits get counted. That's part of the 30% overhead.
zmann August 21st, 2009 11:01 ..........$102,000/HOUR.....almost a million bucks a week....from DN...the guy that heads the insurer that backs Medicaid. Sickening and outrageous!
Rep. Anthony Weiner hit the nail on the head because he focused on the factor that dominates (though the health insurance and drug company shills and their dupes are somewhat successfully obfuscating this), money. There is a huge well of animus towards these companies, all that need be done is to coherently argue the monetary savings...and vast majority of Americans will conclude that these enterprises' days of turning insurance into a license to steal is well past due.
Single Payer -- Better Medicare for All -- is On the Table! There are important votes coming up in September, including Weiner's amendment to replace HR 3200 -- Obama's insurance company bailout bill -- with HR 676 -- the single payer bill.
Find out what's happening and what you can do:
http://www.healthcare-now.org/campaigns/pass-single-payer/
Obama was put in place by Wall Street.He works for Wall Street just like Scarbrows does. As I have said before the solution to health care reform is to lower the medicare elgibility by ten years every year. This year fifty five, next year forty five etc. In five years we hold a going away party for private health insurance.
As a very grateful recipient of Medicare, I can also state that it has it's own deficiencies. They are fixable, though and should be fixed as part of the conversion if there is to be one. The deal cut to disallow government to negotiate drug prices is a shining example of what you get when corrupt corporation meets corrupt politician.
Yes, get corporations out of our politics! But I wonder what kinds of threats big Pharma has for Obama behind closed doors?
Check out Lakoff on commondreams.org
The facts won't work on the public. People ignore facts. Obama and his staff are really blowing this chance for single payer health care. We have to frame single payer as the American Plan because Americans care about one another.
See Lakoff's article from yesterday.
Americans only care for that subset of Americans that seem to be like them: same color, ethnicity, age group, income, property values and so on. However, I do think the American Plan is a good idea because what really gets Americans going is waving the flag and rah, rah rahing USA! USA! USA! Americans are big into the cheap, the easy and the obvious and nothing is so much so as patriotism.
Rainborowe
"We have to frame single payer as the American Plan because Americans care about one another."
Well, this is the problem. Just how much are Americans able to care about one another and act on that empathy? What with fear being pounded into the fabric of this society at every chance for the last 30+ years: fear of job loss, immigrants, welfare cheats, gang-bangers, gender roles, drugs, terrorists and on and on. People have reacted by walling off their lives, literally and figuratively. Personal accountability? About what you would expect from an adolescent. Who can blame them?
Framing is fine but you've got to be realistic. Think like a marriage and relationship therapist. Trust needs to be rebuilt on a community level where people interact and see results. Right now what they see isn't encouraging.
linden
I think that americans do care about one another. I understand your points though. There is also the element of the other and the fear of the other. But I would bet that it is only a very small percentage of people with a bunker mentality.
Re jdpst44 August 21st, 2009 10:04 am, who asserts
"Obama and his staff are really blowing this chance for single payer health care."
How do I put this delicately?
O'Bummer and his bankster advisors are dedicated to sweeping single-payer under the rug, and thus guaranteeing the continued obscene profits of the insco scammers.
Any apparent dithering is aimed at creating maximum confusion about his actual agenda.
You mean to tell me Joe and Mika never understood the difference between for-profit private insurance and not-for-profit public insurance until Weiner explained it to them niiiicccce annnndddd slooooow?
Get these idiots off the air and put them back in grade school where they belong.
Joe was one of the "Contract With America" GOP Congressmen too...elected in Florida in 1994.
This is a very interesting turn of events. Hats off to Representative Weiner. Can we now have some gov't leader talk about the capitalism's same bottleneck in the labor markets?
The great thing about Weiner's approach is that he redirects the discussion to its proper focus which is not healthcare delivery but healthcare financing, a term that I have been using consistently on this topic.
q
We should be addressing health care delivery - how much do you think it costs to bill (and get paid) by an ins co or the gov ? The entire system has been tainted by the managed care bean counters, including those who deliver the services. Every professional in the system is encourged to maxamize services that will be paid for and eliminate those that will not - no matter what the client needs. Tweeking the billing has become a form of art - now more important than caregiving in many facilities. Three layers of management in the delivery system exist to get the most money out of each client, especially from those with medicare. It is quite interesting to see how few services the uninsured get, and how a culture of disdain for them trickles down from management. Conversely, if a client has the means to pay, every possible billable service is maxed out - and stopped at that point - needed or not.
Will single payer stop this? I think not. Tweeking the billing will continue until we stop billing for health services. Every time I see a non profit hospital advertising on TV I know where the money came from, and that is from client care.
"The entire system has been tainted by the managed care bean counters, including those who deliver the services."
Bean counters - a.k.a. accountants - do not deliver healthcare services.
There will be billing abuse schemes regardless of whether healthcare financing is public or private. The fact that some unscrupulous providers will overbill is no reason to abandon single-payer. After all, there are regular news stories about physicians and other providers being charged and convicted for fraudently billing Medicare so there is enforcement.
"Every time I see a non profit hospital advertising on TV . . . ."
I have never seen a non-profit hospital that could afford to advertise on TV.
q
I did not see Joe getting educated. I saw Joe getting Rep. Weiner to commit to Joe's assertion that he wants a government "takeover" of health care. He kept repeating that again and again. "Let me get this right...." - and finally when he said he was speechless, he repeated that point, "you are advocating for a government takeover of healthcare" - he never said that he saw the point that Medicare was efficient and that private insurance is wasteful. He is trying to fan the flames of the wackos to be sure that any plan for any kind of reform fails. Now the right wing fringe can say that Obama is pushing a government takeover of healthcare. It's all about giving them something to fear.
Hmmmmm, something about Joe not seeing the forest for the trees.
I get your point and believe that Scarborough is obtuse, but I don't think he was really trying to fan any flames. To me, this is a classic case of someone who is stuck in the rut of their own ideology. He as much said so at the end of the interview when he conceded with Weiner's point about single payer (as insurance companies are), but still clung to his belief in private industry. It's like saying, "Yeah, you're right, but don't confuse me with facts."
Ideology is a killer!
You are deliberately and egregiously mischaracterizing the interview. In spite of Scarborough's constant interruptions. Weiner makes it very clear that he is pushing a takeover not of healthcare itself but only of the financing role.
q
No, I am simply stating that no matter what Weiner's position was, and by the way, I agree with Weiner 100%, Joe heard what he wanted to hear and he is going to use it against any kind of health care reform. Anyone who thinks otherwise does not understand Joe Scarborough. He is obviously an egomaniac (what is the purpose of the woman next to him), and he knows which side his bread is buttered on.
From your first post: "I saw Joe getting Rep. Weiner to commit to Joe's assertion that he wants a government 'takeover' of health care."
Weiner made no such commitment in the interview. Your opinion of Scarborough (which is higher than my own) is irrelevant to the question of what Weiner himself did and did not say.
q
Watch the interview again - when Joe asked that question and Weiner said "yes" that is when Joe said he was speechless - (you can see it in clip 2 at 7:46). It is also the reason he wants to have Weiner back. I smell a huge rabid rat here.
And as far as Joe's opinion not being relevant, the point of the whole article was supposedly that Joe was "shocked and awed" by Weiner. What I am saying was that he was not shocked, awed, nor educated - he just got someone to say something that he admitted scares a lot of people (again watch the interview before you pick me apart, please). This is the typical kind of scare tactic that the media (funded by big pharma, insurance companies and arms contractors) wants. Who do you think is paying Joe?
I did watch it again and you are either delusional or hoping that I wouldn't do so.
At 7:46 of the second clip, Weiner is talking, not answering a question. Just after that, Scarborough explains that he has finally realized that Weiner is talking about the healthcare "funding mechanism" and Weiner responds "Correct."
I wrote nothing about Scarborough's opinion of anything. I said that it is your opinion about Scarborough's response that has no connection to Weiner's statements.
q
I think you are looking for an argument when there is none. I'm assuming we're all on the same side here when it comes to Weiner's logic - as I said, I'm with him 100%. I am simply saying, that I disagree with the thesis of this column that Joe was shocked and awed by the "logic" of a single payer system. Joe heard only one thing in the interview "government takeover" - and never said he agreed with it. Why you are accusing me of twisting the facts or being delusional is beyond me. If you watch the 2nd clip, Joe begins the clip with that statement, and repeats it several times. It is obviously the only point he is latching on to. To paraphrase the great Barney Frank, discussing this with you is like arguing with a dining room table, and frankly, I do not want to do that.
Wouldn't it be great if we had more people like Weiner who know the facts and know how to put those facts into easily stated, clear arguments? And way to go Joe. I noticed an early mention of kivals' "bottlenecks" (from a comment yesterday). "Bottlenecks" is an interesting way to think of capitalism. Whenever a company can create one, there is the opportunity for greater profits (at the expense of everyone else). Monopolies and excessive patent use are two obvious bottlenecks.
"Monopolies and excessive patent use." Patents are the government intervening in the market. This is the kind of comment that makes people just shake their head in disbelief at the logic of some progressives. It makes no sense to use patents as an example of the evils of capitalism. Patents are a government created problem. They are intervention in the free market. Libertarians are strongly opposed to patents because they are another idiotic government regulation that backfires and harms the people they are trying to protect and rewards the crony corporatists. Also despite the claims of the government to control monopolies, it is usually the supporter of the worst of them. Congratulations by mentioning the wrongs of patents and monopolies you just supported the very reason people are opposed to single payer ( monopoly ) healthcare.
Libertarians don't like patents? Then why do they go so much about "intellectual property rights"?
You do not understand single payer healthcare. Characterizing it as a "monopoly" is completely disingenuous. Under my current Blue Cross policy I have preferred providers. My only need for medical care in the last several years was for unremitting pain. After a month of constant pain I called my local "provider." They said I could get an appointment in one month. I then called Mayo and got an appointment in less than a week. I had to pay extra because of the constraints of Blue Cross. Under a Medicare-for-all plan, cheapskates like myself would not wait a full month in constant pain to have a doctor's help. People love Medicare, that is the bottom line. Do I understand you correctly in thinking that we should have absolutely NO patent protection? I also assume your libertarian instincts would choose NO government funded medical research. If there was no corporate profit in research and no government funding, I might very well have had a full year of constant pain without availability of much more than aspirin. That would have been interesting. Feel free to pigeonhole your libertarian ideology where the sun don't shine.
Single-Payer should contract from ANY company for the best price concerning generic (no patent) drugs and technology.
I say contract because one company will produce a specific product until another company challenges their price at the end of the contract. This gives the company time to tool up and make a profit before the government changes contractors for a better deal.
We don't need the latest and greatest 99% of the time. The industry is soaking consumers with high prices fostered by "behind closed door" deals, pushed by lobbyists. Then they blame each other for driving up costs!
The government has a monopoly on building dams, bridges, maintaining roads, fire departments and schools. They all suck, right ATLAW?
Without government oversight and regulation we would have a market free for all. There would be more monopolies, no auto safety standards, nobody to keep tainted meat off the market. It would be heaven, right?
Don't forget that we have a government precisely to, among other things, "regulate commerce".