This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Heather Graham on Health Care Policy
By Jeff Harding
I confess to being an e-mail subscriber to MoveOn.org. Yes, it's for all the reasons you suspect: spying on the enemy. There maybe some issue somewhere that I would agree with them, but I can't really remember. So, I'll just say that I'm against everything they and George Soros stand for. What they stand for is ignorance, mainly of economics. They also stand for increasing the power of the state to impose their objectives on us by force. But, I choose to mainly focus on economic issues here.
That said, they have no idea what they are talking about, they are a big propaganda mill financed by Soros, they lie, and there are a lot of eager young faces who believe in their lies and ignorance. Based on this, I believe Soros is a sinister, evil force in the world.
I just received this giddy, breathless announcement that just bubbled over with fun:
We just finished a great new ad starring actress Heather Graham...as the public option. (Really!) It could be the funniest and most memorable ad we've ever produced. But with the health care debate moving fast, we want to get it on the air immediately. Can you check out the ad and if you like it, chip in? We're calling out conservatives, who say they love free enterprise but are afraid of real competition, with a new ad starring actress Heather Graham as the Public Option. (Really!)
This is a stunning piece of news. First, Heather (I've-seen-you-naked) Graham is probably a very articulate spokesperson for this subject, well versed in the topic, and has studied all sides of the argument. I'm sure of it. Then they really make a critical point here by challenging we "conservatives" to stand up for competition. I mean, who isn't for competition. If MoveOn is for it, then gosh, it must be good.
Watch Heather first, then I've got more stuff to talk about:
Bloated, lazy, profits, apple pie, competition, public option are some of the words used in this propaganda piece. It's classic agitprop from the Soros propaganda machine.
These people are using the classic Big Lie technique. They create a falsehood and sell it with value-laden, emotional words. They demonize and stereotype the enemy (semi-free enterprise) in ways seen in the crude manner seen during the 20thC from unsophisticated agitators seeking government control over their fellow human beings.
If this piece was reversed somehow where a "conservative" group was ridiculing advocates of national health care, I am sure the public response would be one of outrage.
No one in their right mind could believe that the government could effectively compete against private enterprise. You all know this almost instinctively without having to understand any economic theory. Without the element of profit driving a business enterprise, it will be inefficient, lose money, not serve its customers well, and eventually will go broke. US Postal Service, Amtrack, Massachussetts's health care system, Britain's national health service. If you can come up with an example where a government-operated system was efficient and effective, please let me know. So, you have to suspect that there is some other motive behind the public option other than "healthy competition" and the American Way.
What are the motives of the people behind the public option? I propose that, (i) they are ignorant of economics, (ii) even if they aren't, they will sacrifice principle for power, and (iii) they ignore anything that disagrees with them. It is all about power folks.
See this Wolf Blitzer interview with David Axelrod, and you will see what I mean. You might not want to watch this on a full stomach.
Use small link at bottom left
He's uttering the Big Lie and ignoring the obvious. I rest my case.
»
- advertisements -
this is the best article i have read regarding the mess that is us healthcare. don't get distracted by the title of the article, it is a pretty insightful analysis of the inefficiencies baked into the system.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200909/health-care
Baked? Surely you mean injected. I realize it's just semantics, but there's a big difference between baking and injecting. Martha Stewart bakes. Dr. Kevorkian injects.
Kudos to you Econophile/Jeff Harding.
From someone out there in the trenches of providing healthcare in this country every damn day, let me tell you, the government is 99% directly responsible for the fucked up system we now find our selves in (1% fraud, etc). The idea that they are going to "reform" and improve a system that was working just fine until they got around to fucking with it in the first place is absolutely absurd.
Trust me folks, you can't handle a nationalized healthcare system.
http://society.guardian.co.uk/nhsperformance/
Wonderful post on the mises.org blog here http://blog.mises.org/archives/010883.asp
Best line:
Even more troubling to me is that the meaning of the word insurance has become corrupted in public discourse. What most people mean when they talk about obtaining health insurance is "How can I find a third party who will provide me with unlimited consumption of health care at no or minimal cost to me?"
Nailed it.
"Trust me folks, you can't handle a nationalized healthcare system."
I can handle it just fine and I do - I live in Canada. we have single payer, universal health insurance. The costs per person are less because the costs are spread over the whole population and the bloated profits and waste of the private insurance industry are removed. The system is paid through general taxes. There are no worries about loosing coverage because of loss of a job, a preexisting condition, or some exclusion in the fine print of your policy. I had a triple coronary bi-pass last year. All decisions along the way were made by doctors, not a government bureaucrat in sight. The government just paid the bill. If only they had the political will Americans could have health care like Canada's
I know, let's let the people who brought us the bankrupcy of Medicare, Social Security, and the country in general, start a new multibillion dollar entitlement. That will work really well. (/sarcasm).
+1000000
What a crock of LiberTARDian crap. Your post that is, not whatever inanity moveon is promulgating.
I can't stand the health insurance / pharma industry, and I welcome the right kind of "change." The system is completely fucked, and we need reform. This lifelong libertarian could even live with government-run healthcare if the idiots in DC could get anything right. But they never have! I have absolutely no faith or trust in the federal government. This healthcare debate has turned into a schoolyard bickering contest. No wonder BO reneged on yet another campaign promise of televising the debates on C-SPAN. I'm sure it's pure comedy in that room.
France, All Nordic Countries, Switzerland, Japan. All these counties spend less then we do on health care and have a superior product. Not that I want a public option, but I certainly don't want what we have now.
But they can only do that because of our current system. They piggyback on our R&D, our drugs, our technology. If we adopt Obamacare, neither drug companies nor the medical equipment firms have any reason to engage in expensive development. Then, presto, not only does our available medical care get worse, but the cost of health care goes up markedly in every other Western country.
+1
Absolutely true. WE fund the world's welfare medical systems.
Many agree that the health-care system needs a major overhaul. Personally, I am not of the camp that nothing should be done, I just disagree with how the left is proposing we fix it. I don't think it will work because I understand economics and, to econophile's point, I have plenty of empirical evidence that the government screws up and politicizes pretty much anything they get their hands on. That's not a partisan statement because both sides do it. It's just a fact.
However, I have yet to hear anyone on the left clearly explain WHY the system we have today is so dysfunctional. How did we get here? It's great that we've (sort of) defined our problem, but what caused it? How can we expect to fix a problem when we don't even know what the reasons for it are? This is Business Strategy 101 stuff.
My own sense is that government involvement (to a very large extent, but not completely) is to blame for the mess we're in. From perverse tax incentives to cutting Medicare reimbursement rates, this whole situation absolutely reeks of unintended consequences. Unfortunately, admitting that inconvenient truth ruins the left's narrative that more government is the answer.
Good points. I would also look at the FDA and its completely incentuous relationship with Big Pharma. Dangerous (and expensive) drugs are given a nod while ignoring serious side effects, but cheap natural solutions are not approved, and even actively persecuted. You can't say that something cures cancer because the FDA says it's incurable, so you must be lying. I've personally seen some really great stuff get suppressed to high heaven, to the point where the source person has to leave this country. That is some messed up sh!t.
I think our abilities in emergency medicine are great in this country. If I broke my leg, I know I'd get great care in the ER. But dealing with high blood pressure, diabetes, etc the medical industry are fixed on long term medicating, and when that fails, medicate some more, at greater cost. I've completely dropped out of allopathic medicine, and I am much happier and healthier for it. I think we are arguing for our right to have something that is at least 80% broken, which is a flawed goal for me.
Last I checked, Insurance Companies worked for the ones that pay them, namely the insureds.
In a monopoly then, or any other form of restricted competition, it's the medical community that gets screwed.
As the exclusive carrier of the sickest of us, the elderly, Medicare wields a huge ax that not even a monopolistic insurance company can compete with.
Increased competition then between insurance companies will only serve to open the faucets of greed and expense full force.
The public option is the only way to provide competition by keeping insurance companies from soaking both their customer and the provider of care.
"The public option will kill health care in America."
No. The public option will cut back on the obscene profits and inhumane treatment by the government protected "health insurance" industry.
section 1801* of the Medicare law (Public Law 89-97, 1965)
Now; well over 100,000 pages or regulations exclusively for the supervision and control over the practice of medicine, enforced at the barrel of a gun.
Assume everything a politician says is a lie.
I'd like to go "Dirk Diggler" on her but that's about it.
Econophile, i like you man, and LOVE your posts, but i think no one gives a shit what HG thinks about anything. the second part of your post is A+.
Thank you, CB and Cursive. The fact that MoveOn thinks she will help sell the public option is, to me, priceless.
Also, I am feeling angry and pissed off at the world lately.
PS CB, did you see my last response to the Taleb issues?
Econophile, i left you a response under the Taleb post ...
Don't be angry, it's mostly counterproductive. I can sympathize, though. It seems the world has turned upside down. My main solace is that my wife and kids still love me and I them. The other consolation that I find is that it might actually be better to let the socialists have their day. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. So, if the Socialist agenda wins (for now), good luck telling a bunch of entitled Americans that they can't have what they want. Remember, Aldous Huxley painted a very different picture of the future and it seems to be explaining much more than George Orwell.
Agree. To paraphrase Lizzy from a couple of nights ago, I think HG is best known not for what comes out of, but for what goes in her mouth. I knew her career was in the crapper, but if this is what you resort to when you can't find work, well then....
So I assume that you approve of our present Health care system, and the exclusion of millions of Americans. And the fact that rates have explosively risen for a decade now. You neo-cons believe that Western Medicine is some sacred cow---when in reality, it resembles a pig: bloated, lazy and headed for slaughter. What part of "70% of people prefer a public option" dont you understand? Japan provides superior care for half of what we spend here. The greed of the healthcare/insurance Industry brought this upon itself, and reform must begin now.
Please provide one example of someone who has been "excluded" from receiving medical care.
One person.
It should be easy if there are millions. Please also supply their monthly income and expenses so they can be reviewed. Is this ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/03/AR200908... - skip to page 5 for the payoff) one of those people?
Physicians and hospitals are required by law to provide all emergency care to anyone that wants it (even if it's not truly an emergency. They only need to "think" it's an emergency).
They are compelled under threat of violent force to provide their labor to someone who has no intention of paying for it. Can you provide another profession that operates under such principles?
If you do not choose to purchase health insurance, is there something that prevents you from purchasing healthcare services out of your own money (like you do for food, shelter, clothing, transportation, etc)?
If you say, "Well, medical care is too expensive", I ask if you may please seek to question WHY it has become so expensive. You may also ask why college tuition is so expensive. At the heart, is government subsidization and distortion of supply and demand principles.
Whenever you uncouple the person consuming a service and the one paying for a service, you will inevitably get runaway costs. There is no other way.
To borrow from Robert Blumen:
What most people mean when they talk about obtaining health insurance is "How can I find a third party who will provide me with unlimited consumption of health care at no or minimal cost to me?"
Come on, man.
My wife.
She needed Zofran for nasuea associated with chemotheropy. Our co-pay was over $900/prescription because we could not afford $22,000/year for insurance (pre-existing condition.) Since we had recently lost our business, we could not afford the treatment either. She suffered. This may have contributed to her eventual death since she was unable to complete the chemo regime.
Before losing the business, we had paid for continous coverage for more than 70 years between us.
This sucks.
OK. I'll bite Anon #107776.
If your post is genuine, I am truly sorry for your loss. It is devastating, I know.
However, I have some questions if you don't mind. Please don't take them the wrong way, because I think this could be a good learning experience for all.
If however your post is not genuine, I think it will become clear to all and shame on you.
"She needed Zofran"
Why did she need the newest, most expensive anti-emetic? Did you attempt the use of other less expensive options, such as prochlorperazine, promethazine, dimenhydrinate, marinol, metoclopramide, trimethobenzamide, herbal remedies, medical marijuana? I assure you, if Uncle Sam was paying, he would require all other options be exhausted, with dates/times and witnesses before he would even consider paying for an expensive medication.
"Our co-pay was over $900/prescription because we could not afford $22,000/year for insurance"
Please explain how you had a co-pay on your prescriptions when you didn't have any insurance. In all my years of practice, I have never seen a $900 copay per prescription. Do you perhaps mean $900 per year?
"Since we had recently lost our business, we could not afford the treatment either."
Please explain why you did not continue you prior medical insurance coverage via COBRA or qualify for State Medical Assistance/Medicaid.
If you had too many assets and/or accumulated wealth to qualify for MA/Medicaid, please explain to us why you did not liquefy them and purchase said needed treatments with the proceeds?
Was assistance sought from family, friends, indigent programs? Are you aware that GlaxoSmithKline through their Bridges to Access program would have provided the medication to her, free of charge, if you had no ability to pay? (http://www.rxassist.org/Search/Search_Results_Drug_Name-Build.cfm?Search=zofran&Seq=Brand&CFID=4141775&CFTOKEN=45375552)
"Before losing the business, we had paid for continous coverage for more than 70 years between us."
If you had paid your Home Insurance for 35 years, and you then had your policy cancelled for failure to pay your premiums, and then your house burned down, would you still expect the Insurance Company to pay up?
<soapbox>
As someone who deals with morbidity and mortality every day, let me just say that all of us will eventually become ill and pass away at some point, for some reason. The death rate for human beings is 100%. There is no amount of state provided money or enslavement of your fellow man which will stop it. Sickness is not a mortgage on the healthy. The government has no "magic beans" to make everything all right. If you think a government bureaucrat will have any increased interest in satisfying you as a "customer", then good luck to you. You will need it.
Making everyone else pay for your or your family member's treatment does nothing to change it's costs. It only means the costs are to be born by someone else, under threat of violent force. These costs must all be paid. There is no free lunch.
</soapbox>
That's right. I went there. Now, flame away all you bleeding heart pinkos!
Rusty,
Nother good post!
---------
Physicians and hospitals are required by law to provide all emergency care to anyone that wants it (even if it's not truly an emergency. They only need to "think" it's an emergency).
----------
Good point. Who do you think is paying for these very expensive emergency room visits? Not the patients, not the doctors, not the hospitals and not the insurance companies. It's the federal government! And that is a big part of the cost problem.
Other patients and their physicians pay the cost of much of the uninsured care. Many physicians have two fee schedules, one for "public option" Medicare recipients another for everyone else. Since Medicare is underfunded, everyone else pays 150% - 200% more.
About 50% of ER bills are not paid by anyone - government, insurance, ANYONE. Physicians are required provide free care to everyone under EMTALA (emergency laws).
There are no wallet biopsies, just cost shifting.
umm... yes. I stand corrected. Though this is still a problem which increases costs on everyone, the government is not directly paying for those er bills. I heard about the federal government paying from a medical resident. But next time I'll check again before posting.
What part of "70% of people want a public option, but only if they don't have to pay for it" do you not understand?
"What part of "70% of people want a public option, but only if they don't have to pay for it" do you not understand?"
Getting the news from "FWD :Read This and Pass it along Along Times"?
People are scared shitless of losing their jobs and their insurance especially if they have
a preexisting condition.
Self employed people like myself want to know the insurance company isn't going to pull the plug if I get the big C because my paid in premiums just can't keep up with a 100G worth of Chemo invented by the National Institute of Health , part of the Federal Govt and handed to a drug company.
45,000 people die a year from not getting
any insurance. Have you ever heard "we cannot find you insurance at any price". Take the 39 cent solution. Put on a garbage bag eat a gun and don't make a mess. Kinda like getting a root canal. Real tough when the local goes into a live root. But then total peace.
That's the plan half the country will be on in ten years. No business will ever be competitive in the US again. But as long as Ron Williams over at Aetna can do a little Data mining and cancel 8 million policies and get paid
25 million before stock based compensation a year to do it, everything is A-OK with you. Right pal?
Shit, if you don't like it go to
country number 38 who is right behind us
in health care. I'm sure you'll find
some bliss there.
Hey Hammer59, name something, anything, one thing, a small thing NOT 17% of the economy that the government can run well? Name it, you want to insure those millions? Hell give them the money and let them go out into the privary system and buy insurance - anything is better and CHEAPER that letting government anyWHERE NEAR ANYTHING THAT HAS TO DO WITH THE ECONOMY!!
LEAVE PEOPLE (ME) ALONE!! GET OUT OF MY LIFE, IF I WANT TO EAT JUNK, SMOKE JUNK, DRIVE JUNK, DRINK JUNK, LEAVE ME THE HELL ALONE. YOU GUYS ARE LIKE "THE CHURCH LADY" EVERYWHERE TELLING US HOW WE ARE SUPPOSE TO LIVE.... GO AWAY!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnCZxLvYXI8&feature=related
DBLTapViper
Our small company's premiums went up 11% this year. I'm not interested in an ideologue speechifying about how he doesn't like the government. I'm interested in solutions.
So tell me how to keep my premium from going up 11% again next year.
Make insurance companies compete across state lines. Then you would start to see true insurance products pop up. (Low cost options, catastrophe only, etc...) Then you'd see real creativity at work, as hundreds of companies compete for your business.
That one thing will solve everything. Seriously.
Simple is good.
P.S. Lowering the malpractice racket would be a good #2 initiative.
Simply ask WHY these costs are going up.
Then work towards stopping that thing.
See. Easy.
I really don't give a shit about people who choose not buy health insurance, whether they get sick, live or die.l That's their inalienable right to do so.
For the ones who desperately need insurance and can't get it becasue of prior conditions, truly damned financial straits, or some other legitimate reason, then a way can be found without turning the entire 500,000,000 people in the United States (current and projected population) into Calcutta,or Caracas.
70% of the people do not want a public option so that makes you either a complete fool, a propagandist, or an outright liar.
Re-regulate the insurance companies, just like public utilities and much of the problem disappears.
Bingo!! We have a winner!!!
Insurance companies should administer the collection of premiums and payment of bills, at most. The risk as to whether I get sick or not is a social responsibility, not a business proposition.
My wife and I paid for insurance for a total of more than 70 years between us. Because of a business failure, we found ourselves without a group policy. Because of a pre-existing condition, her insurance would have cost an absolute minimum of $22,000/year. A bit steep for a couple that had just lost their business.
She is now dead and I am making more than $1,000/month in payments to the various folks that cared for her. I will be doing so until I am 67. All those years of payments with few, if any, claims have not protected me.
I agree with the idea the government is terribly inefficient. I know from first hand experience, having been a (not so) civil servant for 10 years. I also know from direct experience of the incredible inefficiency in our current system. Bills submitted 3 - 4 times before approaval, etc. I was still receiving notices of re-billings nearly 18 months after my wife died.
Insurance companies need to be regulated in the same manner as any other public utility. Period. The risk needs to be pooled nation-wide. Period.
My $0.03 worth, since it is now more than 8 hours today.
I don't know how a public option would pan out, but I don't understand the protestations that our current system is some sort of paragon of American freedom that must be protected at all costs.
Since getting out of college, I've had six health plans, and eight primary doctors, most of whom I saw one time. Dealing with doctors and insurance are still pretty bureaucratic, and I pay more out of pocket every year. And if the extreme anxiety I currently have over my job security turns into unemployment, I'm not sure how I will cover my young family and pay the mortgage.
At this point, I'd be happy to have any alternative proposed by anyone to consider. Choices are good. People who argue that more choices aren't good are making money off the status quo.
You should ask yourself who regulates the current system & just how much of the cost is based on meeting said regulations, not to mention who enforces Malpractice & who has refused to get it under control.
This is turning over the system to the very people/organizations who have caused it to be so expensive in the first place. The Insurance Companies have to play the game; they don't make the rules.
Actually, in most industries, the largest richest corporations generally play a huge part in making the rules. You think the insurance companies haven't had anything to do with writing the regulations?
I'm not sold on a public option, but our system is just nothing to rave about. We need major fixes, and if one of those is a little affordable plan (from the govt or whoever else) that I can use to cover my family between employment, I don't see that as the end of American capitalism.
This current system isn't meeting my needs very well, and I'm open to hearing about any reasonable alternatives.
Hey, you could follow me: chinese medicine (acupuncture, herbs, breathing, stretching/Chi Kung), homeopathy, consistent aerobic work & lifting, get to sleep around 9 or 10, get up early, no drinking or do it in moderation. Disconnect from Western Medicine & you will only need it for accidents. After spending my childhood getting very little but pain from them, I exited stage right. They don't really know what they are doing.
Just say no.
The current system isn't meeting your needs because it has already been tossed by the Feds. Prices go up because demand exceeds supply or supply drops relative to demand. Medicare and Medicaid (let's call that demand) are working in concert with an over-regulated health care industry (we'll call that supply). Both products of the Fed government. Throw in a little crony capitalism and we're right where we deserve to be.
You're right about one thing - our current system doesn't deserve to to be defended. It deserves to be liberated.
The most comical, and utterly mystifying, group of people in this 'healthcare debate', are the 21-29 year olds who are in love with Obama.
This is precisely and exactly the group of people who will get boned the hardest and deepest by Obama and his 'health proposals'.
What can't you young people see?! Obama is going to put a gun to your head and make you buy expensive insurance you don't need! Wake up! You're the losers in his game.
You may not find it so comical or mystifying if, like my son you are 21, with type 1 diabetes, graduating from college next spring and therefore no longer covered under parents insurance policy. Along with the pressure of finding a job, you might be praying that Obama's plan is enacted in case you don't find that rare and getting rarer job with decent insurance that will pay for the insulin and supplies that will keep you alive.
Heather can't run very fast.... Or Fat people can run really, really fast.
I vote for fast running Fat people!
DBL
Killing the cancer spawning, closely held healthcare industry, holding company ponzi scheme would be a very good first step, followed closely by the compliance-based Pavlov education breeding system. In the process, I'm sure many will profit from the market variability induced by the chess match.
Having something constructive on the other side would be even better.
Heather Graham is hot.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyJ-J4phXME
OK normally I do not have an emotional response to web published articles. But to have to put up with complete crap like this:
"No one in their right mind could believe that the government could effectively compete against private enterprise."
Just one word - Medicare.
I retired from a fortune 50 corp almost 3 years ago and my health care is running out. Having a very problematic daughter (cost me a cool $250,000 over the past 2 years), I find us unable to find health insurance. I am able to afford any amount of money, but it looks like self insurance is in my future.
OK - serious 7 figure net worth, retired now 52, and if I cannot get health care for my family where does that leave the little people?
You obviously are an idiot or you have no relevant experience to write this article.
Idiot is way to easy on you. Does your girlfriend know that you have a Dick Cheney blow up doll in your closet?