« Animated Family Guy Campaigning To Win Emmy
Robert Novak, Former CNN Crossfire Host and Conservative Columnist Dies At 78 »
Anthony Weiner Tears off the Mask
On this morning’s edition of Morning Joe on MSNBC, Congressman Anthony Weiner (D-NY) showed up to talk about his version of health care reform which he will be pushing for a vote on in September. He also expressed regret about President Obama’s lack of enthusiasm for insisting on a public plan and his general unwillingness to go “far enough” in restructuring health care in this country. But he even managed to shock me when Joe Scarborough got him to rip away the mask entirely and ask him if he was looking to completely eliminate private health insurance in America. You know… those plans that 83% of us have and we’re being assured that we can keep them if we like them? I’ll include a transcript of the video below with time stamps in case you can’t load the video, but I encourage you to watch it. It’s jaw dropping.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
2:31
Weiner: … people standing up at town hall meetings and saying, oh, you can’t provide a strong public option because then poor insurance companies won’t be able to compete. That’s a strange thing for a citizen to say. Most people don’t like their insurance company.Scarborough: Well, I don’t know who is saying… [crosstalk]
W: Why are people against the public plan?
S: Because over the past six months, government growth, they believe, is happening at too rapid of a rate and they’re skeptical. I don’t think there’s been an explanation of how the government plan is not equal to a government takeover of health care, which we all know it’s not a government takeover, but that’s how it sounds to people.
W: Right. But I have heard people say repeatedly that if the government plan is too muscular, then they won’t be able to compete. Well, if they can’t compete, then they’re not going to get customers. They’re not going to get patients coming to them. And isn’t that what we want? To give people that choice? Look, the problem that we have here is that we’re trying to jury rig the system so that insurance companies still continue to make healthy profits. Why? 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% overhead rate… The real question is why do we have a private plan?
S: Wait, wait. Now you’re sounding like you want the government to take over. You say why do we have insurance companies in the health care business, it’s because we are a country that is… we believe in free enterprise, if I’m not mistaken.
W: Well, tell that to people who get Medicare.
Now, skip ahead a little to 4:44 in the replay.
S: You just asked, Anthony, why have insurance companies that make profits?
W: What’s the value? What are they providing?
S: What’s the value of Wall Street companies?
W: It’s not the same thing. They’re not providing, essentially, a government service!
Now for the kicker… go to 5:15 in the replay.
S: It sounds like you’re saying you think there is no need for us to have private insurance in health care.
W: I’ve asked you three times. What is their value? What are they bringing to the deal?
(At this point, look at Scarborough’s face. He’s absolutely speechless and stares at the table for a moment.)
S: Again… I’m astounded by your question. It sounds like you’re suggesting that there’s no need to have a country that’s run on free market principles.
W: Time out. Let’s focus on one thing at a time. This isn’t a commodity, Joe. Health care isn’t a commodity.
S: You’re saying that health care is different than everything else.
W: Health care is not a commodity.
S: But you are making the conservatives’ point. You are making the point of the people at the town hall meetings who say this is Barack Obama’s opportunity to get rid of private health care and turn it completely over to the government. I’m sitting here stunned, saying Oh My God, you’re making the point of the health care protesters.
W: If Barack Obama doesn’t want to do it, I want to do it.
Now we skip to 7:15 after some cross talk.
S: You’re sitting here advocating for a complete takeover, a government takeover of health care.
W: Only if you think Medicare is a government takeover. Do you?
S: So, Anthony, I figured it out over the break. You actually do want the federal government to take over all of health care.
W: Only in the sense that the federal government took over health care for senior citizens 44 years ago.
S: You want to expand that for all Americans.
W: Correct. I want Medicare for all Americans.
It just goes on from there, with Weiner clarifying and expanding on exactly the same point. Scarborough actually thanks him for a “level of clarity” rarely seen on these interviews, where most Democrats will not come out and actually admit it. Weiner makes no bones about it. He has no desire to “reform” the health insurance industry as laid out in “The Weiner Plan” as he calls it. He wants to eliminate it entirely and put everyone in the country on Medicare.
My hat is off to you, Congressman. I agree with Joe Scarborough. Rarely do we see such refreshing honesty. You want to destroy the health insurance industry in this country and you make no bones about it. Thank you, sir, for the moment of clarity.
145 Responses to “Anthony Weiner Tears off the Mask”
Jazz what you and several others have touched on is, to me, the fundamental debate that is not held enough on the talking head shows. My father insures doctors for malpractice making a six figure income. He obviously has a lot of connection with the health industry/insurance/etc. and has a lot of knowledgable opinions about the whole thing. I'm a working class musician making (hopefully) 50K a year, haven't been able to get insurance for a while until recently when my wife's employer began offering reasonable, if somewhat skimpy health insurance. While having a civil if somewhat lively discussion over the issues with my pops, the problems, and the solutions to what is an obvious mess of a health care system, we discovered that there is an impasse with our philosophies. He believes as you do. Health insurance and the care that follows are commodities like a nicer house, or a boat, or tickets to the opera, or anything that can be afforded by the consumer. I have no problem not begrudging certain acroutement of lifestyle to those who have worked hard and prospered, but I believe health care in this country is a right and NOT a commodity. In an age when every industrialized nation save the US of A has found a way to offer their citizens basic care, it's inexcusable to tell someone who cannot afford health insurance that no matter how hard they've worked, their lack of expendable income is enough reason to deny them some reasonable access to a health insurance plan. And to answer your questions about other forms of insurance, if my home, auto, or life insurance were as outrageously inaccessible and expensive as health insurance, then we'd all be up creek with no paddle. There are also a myriad of government programs and monies that have saved or assisted victims of natural disasters, helped farmers like my grandfather who received subsidies when things were tough, and made grants for brilliant students like my wife get through grad school. All those things improve lives in this country which makes for a better society overall. I believe that a healthier and more secure middle class is what will make this country better, not Aetna and BC/BS making a nice profit in the third quarter.
As a Canadian I obviously come from a much different experience but I have found this entire debate over the last few weeks fascinating. I too was impressed by Congressmen Weiner's candor on this matter however what I have difficulty understanding is why there is so much fear of government run insurance in the first place?
Our system up here is by no means perfect and neither is any other countries system however, the thought of providing health care as a for-profit industry is incredible. Shouldn't it be mandated that health care be provided as a non profit service? I can think of no reason why any American would want to support the idea of paying out giant insurance companies massive profits in order to get medical treatment when you need it except fear generated by these very same insurance companies who want to go on profiting every time you need to see your doctor.
The obvious solution seems very simple, the US government pays your doctors directly and not insurance companies who's paramount interest is to turn a profit.
jhayes
“They operate on a 4% overhead cost yet are still going broke. ”
Private insurance operates on a 30% overhead and has increased profits by over 400% since 2003.
The answer to affordable health care lies somewhere between the two. Maybe that's the discussion that needs to take place instead of the current all or nothing debate.
HemmD,
I would agree, I do like the idea of co-ops or not for profit that is run as a company that must be efficient and offer viable plans at affordable rates, but as stated earlier we need to address costs first and foremost before we can even consider anything else. I just wonder why more is not being done on the cost front. The notion that preventitive care will drastically reduce costs is a misnomer.
Jazz — There is a difference between “what does a health insurance company do” and “what does health insurance bring to the table”. Did you really honestly think that the Congressman and the readers who liked his response don't know what a health insurance company does? We know what they do; we're not actually idiots. We think that there are myriad better ways to do it, and these ways are being used in most other industrialized nations in the world. So, the point of the question is: Why are insurance companies so darn valuable that they can't be replaced with a better system? Now, posing the question as to whether a certain system is better than insurance companies as they work in this country now is something that we can debate, but it does start with the question: what do insurance companies bring to the table? Why is *this* system worth perpetuating?
Also, a person's body is actually different from a head of lettuce. Or a car. Just sayin'.
Jazz — It seems like it's standard for Republicans to ridicule those who disagree with them, instead of arguing the facts. You ridicule those commenting here, implying they don't understand insurance. For the record, I am in the insurance industry, and in fact, wrote textbooks on life, health and property/casualty insurance. I know exactly what I'm talking about. What I saw when I watched Joe was a complete inability to answer a simple question. It's as if he (and many Republicans) think using the phrase “government takeover” means you automatically win any argument. We're all supposed to cower in fear when it's uttered. That's just plain lazy. Republicans have been hiding behind Ronald Reagan's slogans for a long time. I think the jig might finally be up.
@jhayes “They operate on a 4% overhead cost yet are still going broke.”
It's important to remember that Medicare/Medicaid operate at a loss because they don't cover everyone — they cover, specifically, only the sectors of the population that is by far the most expensive: the elderly, the disabled, the extremely poor. In fact, insurance companies make their huge profits because they *won't* cover these groups. If the government programs could cover a wider range of people — including one of the healthiest but least insured groups, 20-somethings — they would be able to break even, or at least come much, much closer.
Hemm – actually I do think we should get rid of farm subsidies but you still didn't answer my question.
If “health insurance” is a right and therefore not a commodity, why shouldn't we put food and shelter into that same category? After all they are just as “necessary for human life” as health……
LL
jhayes
“I just wonder why more is not being done on the cost front. “
My belief may seem jaded, but consider the simple fact that private health derives its profit from a relatively small percentage of the total negotiated contracts it makes. Isn't 2-3% of a 100 million more than 2-3% of 50 million? I'm afraid care costing less just reduces their profits.
Its also the reson blue dogs have axed set pricing for drugs and made illegal their import from Canada. That's the problem that keeps price reduction out of the discussion.
Patricia,
The fundamental issue is whether you think the govt will do a better job. No matter how you cut it, there will have to be rationing as there is in almost every country with socialized medicine. Many are not willing to make that concession.
jhayes, to your point about medicare reembursement rates, this is definitely something most people advocating for the program don't bring up. However, we do not see this trend in countries with single-payer programs. While doctors in those countries don't make as much as doctors in the US, they also don't spend half of their time on the phone with insurance companies, nor do they have to spend the astronomical amounts on malpractice insurance. They take the pay hit, but work 40 hour weeks, like normal people, and don't have to be constantly worried that they'll be sued.
roro,
You hit on the fundamental issues that should be addressed prior to any single payer system or insurance overhaul. Physicians in this country will run for the hills if the current rates are applied along with the current tort laws.
jhayes 71 — Because no one has been effectively explaining that health care is being rationed right now by insurance companies with a profit motive. Why trust a for-profit more than you trust a nonprofit entity? I've worked for both profit and non-profits and don't see that for-profit moves any faster, is more effective at cutting waste or coming up with creative solutions to problems. In fact, the CEO at the last for-profit company I worked for is in prison for falsifying profits to boost the stock price. Of course, there are good and bad in both, but at least the government is US. When we finally disabuse ourselves of the unthinking, kneejerk reaction against government, maybe then we can have a logical, fact-based discussion of our options.
LL
first
I never said health insurance, I said health care. insurance is a private industry device.
So you're willing to pay $12 gallon for milk? I suppose you can afford it.
I happen to believe people require help as they need it. To that end, giving food or shelter to the hungry or the homeless is a national responsibility.
Your debating tactic is of course easy to return. Are you willing to allow people to starve and children to be be homeless waifs in our cities?
Maybe your question posed to me is little too contrived. I would rather discuss the real issues, not all-inclusive theoreticals that sound astute, but belie the real issues at stake.
“Physicians in this country will run for the hills if the current rates are applied along with the current tort laws.”
Where are they going to run? China? UK? Canada? Most 1st world countries have government health care plans and doctors that are paid less than US doctors.
NOW..to be fair…here is the real issue.
We have a shortage of doctors and have been imported doctors from overseas for quite some time now. Some people are talking about reducing the number of exams that doctors need to pass in the US in order to work here…all an attempt to get more doctors here.
IF, we go public and reduce what we pay doctors…we no longer give them a reason to leave home and come here.
That is a real issue. I also completely agree that our tort laws MUST be changed. Reducing malpractise insurance is a must.
I understand the desirably nature of this unicorns and rainbows theory where we can all punish the evil insurance companies who dare to make a profit, but health care (even if you think it's a “right”) costs money and somebody has to pay for it eventually.
And you would rather that somebody is you, and that you pay more for it rather than less?
Navigator, the word “secure” in “secure those rights” has nothing to do with the word “security.”
“Secure those rights” means to get and keep those rights — to ensure that we will have them and continue to have them. It refers to all our rights enumerated in the Constitution — free speech and press, freedom of religion, the right to a trial, all of that. “Secure those rights” does not mean “right to security.”
These healthcare threads are truly generating the most discussion I have ever seen on TMV.
I agree with many posters that there does appear to be some disconnect in ideology over what healthcare is, a basic right that we want to afford ourselves, or a commodity where only the privileged can afford. If the will is strong enough, there will be minimal problems in coming up with a way to pay for universal coverage for all. I think there is a tremendous amount of misinformation and effort being spread by those who stand to lose money due to changes. So, thats it, money. Money is more important than our public health, our competitiveness in the world market, more than freeing millions from the yoke of lack of preventative care or rehabilitative care.
Oh I did find one innovation from the Health Insurance industry. They invented the “pre-existing condition.”
Simple question Hemm. If health CARE is a right because it is necessary for human life and it is is SO necessary that the government must guarantee it, why is food and shelter, which are equally necessary to human life not guaranteed by the government?
Acrtually you already answered my question…if government guaranteed food will give us $12/gallon milk what makes you think that government will be able to control the cost of health care if they take IT over?
LL
LL — I think you missed Hemm's point. The government subsidizes food so that you DON'T pay $12 for a gallon of milk. So, in order to provide enough food for the people, the government most certainly does pay farmers to farm. The items they pay farmers to farm is another question, and certainly has been criticized, but make no mistake: the federal government has a heavy hand in keeping the populace fed.
LL — I think you missed Hemm's point. The government subsidizes food so that we DON'T pay $12 for a gallon of milk. The particular items the government subsidies pay farmers to farm are often criticized, but make no mistake: the government already has a heavy hand in keeping the populace fed.
Jazz,
First, the studies addressed the care outcomes, a very important key to how to spend our health care dollars. The point being that you can have really good care at lower cost than is spent by the insurance companies. Second, the access problems for VA are definitely an issue for me and have been for 2 decades at least. The problem with those issues are that they directly relate to Congressional limits on funding. I totally resent that some Vets are not considered eligible because of the inability of the program to spend as much money on their health care as we do on the wars the create the need for it. I have said for most of those decades that the first debt America MUST pay is the health care for all the vets who deserve it. We have to get over the idea that our tax dollars are being wasted by this.
The budget for our House of War is, as I pointed out, the ultimate example of how much gov can achieve when it is financed so far above and beyond the actual need. Yes, it is one of the Constitutional directives for the government. On amphetamines, growth hormones and steroids. To have an annual budget 15% more than the COMBINED total military budgets of all other nations is indescribably absurd. It is the result of the Gunbelt industries that own Congress. We are way beyond the standing army the founders did not want established. I would be the first to point out the world has drastically change since then. Not that much.
Medicaid is NOT medicare. It is not as effective or efficient as the other payment systems. Because it is a federal and state funded program which is state administered. As the government has cut back on funding many programs, the states have had to pick up the differences – for more than medicaid. One of the bills contains a very intelligent plan. It would do away with Medicaid and put all those individuals on the Public Option. There are several ripple effects in this whole dysfunctional system. Cutting the excessive costs that providers incur due to the complexity of the billing (and denial) system allows more money for primary care. A statistic I used in the 2004 campaign : in Colorado 20% of the kids were on medicaid. In Colorado Springs main hospital, 50% of the kids in the Pediatric ICU were on medicaid. Due to the low reimbursement to providers, the parents often could not get care with a primary care physicians (family or pediatrician) because they could only take so many patients per practice (cost shifting the care to those with insurance). So the parents had to wait until an ER visit was necessary, which all too frequently resulted in an admission, including the ICU kind. Much more expensive in the long run than raising the reimbursement rates. Putting this group into the public option will take them out of the third class system they are currently in.
The inter-related loop of all these underpayments, cost shifting and inadequate access has been studied and solutions proposed for decades. We keep falling back on the idea that the magic market system will take care of it. The facts do not support this as much as the facts that the Government can manage a variety of health care systems quite well.
The IHS? I have some direct experience with this because as an RN in Alaska for 14 years, I saw a lot of the system. It can be just as excellent as others. There are some significant issues that have nothing to do with the government or health care that contribute to the severe, disgraceful and immoral problems there. The first is the reality of how this nation has treated Native Americans for 520 some years. The related problem is discrimination, very simply. Yeah, it needs to be overhauled, big time. The IHS is part of the PHS, which is difficult to put into that type of assessment because much of the care is directed at epidemiological problems and maternal infant care.
Your concerns about who will pay for the rest reveal some significant gaps in the knowledge base on how the whole system is so tangled and inefficient, there are many savings that could easily cut many of those costs which the CBO cannot really assess. Meanwhile, the CBO and OMB have both looked at the bills to determine what additional funds need to be raised. Obama has talked about some of the ways the bills address this and what else can be done. Seems to me that out of 544.7 million, a few million could be cut without anyone feeling much pain. Just ask Winslow Wheeler and Franklin Spinney. Full disclosure; I married into an Air Force family and lived near Elmendorf (where my brother in law worked) for 11 years, working with a lot of military wives. Ultimately, Americans have to face the reality that we also have to face up to whether we are ever going to pay for what we want through our taxes. This is particularly due to the prime contribution to the debt: WAR.
The reality is that given what most of us are already spending on health care premiums, deductables, and co-pays, the competition from the exchange is expected (per the CBO and OMB evals) to cut some of those expenses while increasing coverage for both the policy holders and uninsured.
Obama has zeroed in on electronic technology that would be a big help in decreasing health care communication costs and gaps. Another one that has been in the works and should be part of this are established health histories. Hippocrates maintained that 95% of diagnosis is (medical) history. Today I would put it at about 80% due to the amount of diagnostic testing we have available. The other pieces is a really thorough physical assessments. When an elderly person is admitted to an ER and hospital due to illness, their memory is too dysfunctional to provide a complete and accurate health history. Plus it's an unnecessary time waster to recollect the data that has not changed. If the physician can get a very complete history from the electronic record technology, they can start there and be more focused on the new signs, symptoms etc. I can't find the stats on the amount of unnecessary tests, treatments and cost of delay of appropriate treatment, but it is quite significant.
While I understand your concerns and frustrations, it's quite imaginary to accuse someone who has been involved in health care in this country as much as I have, and extensively studied the new information and statistics, to be advancing a 'unicorns and rainbows theory.' Try spending even a week in the tough reality of bedside health care in an acute care facility and see if your perspective is a little more reality based. I have worked every critical care unit except NICU, and including the 'Thermal unit in AK -for burns and frostbite. Every regular floor and a jail unit, a very small amount of ER, almost as many years of home care and enough insurance case management to know just how they think and operate.
LL — The question of right vs. privilege is a straw man argument. People are getting healthcare and will continue to get it. We are paying for it and will continue to pay for it. Let's be smarter about how we do it so costs go down, and outcomes improve.
The right vs. privilege question is a strawman argument. People do get healthcare. They will continue to get it. We already do pay for it, and we will continue pay for it. The relevant and practical question is what is the smartest, most efficient way to get quality care for the greatest number of people?
Single payer and single payer only. I personally don't care if the bloodsuckers running the insurance companies starve to death.
I personally have TOTAL medical coverage. I have no problem with the expense of health care in the US. It is all covered. My problem is allergies, fantastic number of allergies so I moved to a third world part of a second world country where they cannot afford to buy chemicals to put on the food or in the fields.
Do you have any clue as to how many chemicals are in your hospitals? How many patients are killed each year because doctors are god? I do. I am allergic to penicillin. Three times in my last 10 years in the states, I had doctors prescribe a shot of penicillin for me. The last doctor that I dealt with in the states gave me a prescription for a pain killer with acetaminophen. Refused to change it. I had to have pain killers to get home. I was shitting blood by the time I got to Miami. Should his license be pulled? Fuck, yes. But the tightest richest union in the us is the AMA.
However, I live somewhere where I have 6 excellent doctors that do HOUSE CALLS. The most expensive, and the only one who does not speak perfect english, is my psychiatrist. The MOST expensive is $30 american for an hour.
Feel like you are being screwed, you are.
I spent 7 weeks in the hospital with a problem that would have killed me in the us. Here, I paid cash for everything and when I got out of the hospital, I had more money in my bank account than I had before from my pension.
Word had passed up through the grapevine that an american was in a public health service hospital. The head of Health Services flew 1800 miles round trip twice to try and talk me in to going to the states, I refused. The head of the hospital system flew down once begging me to ask for a Medevac flight. I totally refused. Their national pride would have been hurt if I died, they went beyond what anyone in the us would have done for me.
I bumped into someone on a blog who has a friend that suspected she had cancer, but couldn't even afford to go to a damn General Practitioner. I have paid her way to a country that has better results from health care than the united states. Yes, it is cancer. Yes, they operate tomorrow. I lost my soul in vietnam but no human will die if I have enough money to pay for necessary medical care. I am a total atheist, so many of the comments that I read on these blogs make me look like a fucking saint.
I am so ashamed of my country and it's “all for me, none for you” attitude.
Wars that are going to increase the number of my fellow veterans on the street from 100,000 (over 7,000 female vets on the street) to what 500,000?
Now tell me again how important it is that one man, Microsoft's Bill Gates needs all of the money he has and the money he will get in the future. How many damn meals, housing, and medical care is his family going to need for the next twenty thousand years? The interest on the interest on the interest would keep the Gates family comfortable for the next thousand years.
Compromise shit. Hang any bastard who takes the insurance companies bribes, then hang the briber, then hang the Chairman of the board, with the president of the company and the rest of the board of directors.
How many of you have stock in insurance companies? Rockefellers do, Kennedy do, Mellons do. Buffet doesn't, he just dumped all of his insurance stock.
But do you?
joeinhell, One thumb up… your points are well made… And if Berkshire Hathaway is panning the industry I think I'll buy another 1/4 share (I can't afford more than $25,000) can't afford more in this economy.
Ginny you need to run for public office!! You have nailed these weasles at every turn! KUDOs to you! I too live in CO and came to this site to see the video of Joe “mourning” getting a schoolin'. This has been my question all along: What do health insurance companies add to patient care and atient outcome? Answer: NOTHING! so Why do they take 30+% of our health care dollars??? If every health insurance company disappeared tomorrow, would we as a nation be able to provide health care? *BTW: My wife is a 25+year RN. Mom is a retired 40year RN. Universal Single Payer's time is NOW! Call your reps. every day. It only takes a min. and they need to know that we sent them to do this for us! Thank you!
The best Joe could muster as a response was something like, “Well, you have a very different ideology.” I would have liked Congressman Weiner to reply, “Yes, and I think I've explained it very well. I haven't heard you offer any defense to your own ideology.”
Weiner was awesome. His arguments were lucid and complete. I want to see him go far.
THANKS to MSNBC for having Anthony Weiner as Joe's guest. Americans are getting sicker with either no health insurance or one they can't use due to high deductibles, co-pays, etc. Without a single-payer plan, we cannot compete globally. U.S. car manufacturers are insurance companies who just happen to make cars. Canada builds cars for $3,000 LESS than the U.S. because the employers don't have to provide health care. Also, despite the lies re Canadians not liking their national plan, when given the choice of signing up for a private plan, not ONE person signed up! ASK your legislators get behind Rep. Weiner and really make a difference for the people, instead of keeping the insurance companies rich!!
You seemed to miss that Weiner is speaking for himself, no Obama, not Democrats and not “libruls”. Obama has made it clear that given the current US system, single-payer is not achievable (too disruptive or wouldn't pass, take your pick). That doesn't make HR3200 a Trojan Horse.
I don't shop around for health care based on price. I also don't pass on surgery because it isn't in my budget, and I certainly don't need an insurance company “helping” me find a doctor. We have “middle men” to sell electronics, furniture, or clothing because it is a tad difficult going door-to-door in China looking for the right material in color. Health care is different. It is not a commodity.
You know it, and Joe knows it.
To use your word, 'Amazing'. That you would attempt to compare an automobile or a home to a human life? A damaged roof to a broken leg? Rust to cancer? BUT I will grant you this…the two types of insurance you mentioned, auto and home, are legislated. They are required in order to drive a car or own a home. But health insurance is not? So what IS more important…your car, your house, or your health?
Doctors and hospitals create provide health care services, not oompa loompa land and CERTAINLY not insurance companies. Why should we pay a middle-man a 30% margin for what we could pay Medicare to do for 4%?
Weiner simply expressed the opinion that if he had his way, Medicare would be expanded to cover everyone. There's nothing shocking about that, and it would be no more of complete “government takeover” than Medicare is, but Scar acted as if Weiner was proposing the Commie takeover of the entire federal government. He did a poor acting shocked.
I am coming late to this discussion and haven't gotten through the whole thread yet, but I noticed that some are arguing that healthcare is not a commodity. Well, depends on which definition your using (in some sense of the word, commodity refers to raw goods, but I presume by the way some of you are using the term that this isn't the way you're using the term.)
If it's not a commodity- anyone who thinks that, please feel free to answer…then how do we go about accessing unlimited supplies of it?
If healthcare is a right which should not be subjected to market based rationing, and if the govt has an obligation to ensure that it is available to all according to need- how does that work, exactly? If there aren't enough primary care physicians, should specialists be conscripted and force to forego their specialty for general practice?
It doesn't make sense- and obviously since we're not going to enslave healthcare workers, we're going to face shortages on the supply side if we increase demand. The market does ration things right now- but the govt will have to ration too, it will just do so according to top down attempts at planning for regional and demographic needs for the goods and services. Many of us see that this has never really worked out well when it's been attempted.
Why should we pay a middle-man a 30% margin for what we could pay Medicare to do for 4%?
Since both of those numbers are false, there's no reason to engage the argument on those strawman terms.
CS
And good morning to you too.
For my end of this discussion, let's agree of terms
Health care insurance is a commodity. Health care is a right under the general welfare clause. Check my comments to jazz for the logic used.
As to the figures cited, let's just cut to the chase and discuss the 400% increase in profits since 2003(i think that's the year)
Good to hear from you.
The problem with Weiner's clarity (which I do appreciate, BTW- I'd much rather hear people honestly express their ideas than to obfuscate) is that it demonstrates that the real divide is within the Democratic party, and not the fault of the GOP or the corporate lobbyists.
The bills that have come through committees have supposedly been attempts to create a public option health insurance company that would compete, fairly, side by side, with private insurance without stacking the deck so that the private companies would have to fold.
By admitting openly that he does not favor this kind of competition (just as a few others like Barney Frank and Schakowsky), they undermine the segment of their party that needs to convince skeptical voters that their plan is not meant to incrementally usher in a single payer system.
And that goes to Jazz's point too- it's disingenuous to criticize conservatives for opposing the current public option plans on the basis that the plans seek to put us on the path to single payer- when many Dems are simultaneously saying that they think single payer is the ultimate solution that we need to aim for. With quite a few Dems openly saying this- it is obvious that the conservative concern about that is not unfounded.
OK, Hemm, regarding those terms.
Again I ask you- if healthcare is a natural right- the kind that our Constitution guarantees no one can take away from us…then where does it come from? SOMEONE has to provide it by investing years of their life and a sizeable chunk of their monetary resources to become trained in order to give you or me or any other citizen their 'healthcare'… and if you argue that the government HAS to ensure the provision of unlimited amounts of healthcare to all citizens, how can it possibly do that without taking away the rights of other citizens?
Re: the security/general welfare clause stuff…I have some thoughts on that but not sure I have time to adequately cover them right now….off to a doctors appt in a little while.
Ditto for the part about the increased profit numbers- you're opening a new can of worms that I don't have time to address. My comment about false numbers has to do with the overhead costs which were misstated by another commenter. The private insurance number isn't as high as he/she stated, and the Medicare number isn't as low as he/she stated if you really compare apples to apples. Medicare overhead is reported differently but a lot of it has to do with what is accounted for and what is not. Plus, there's a reasonable argument that the Medicare overhead cost is TOO low and that's why they fail to weed out a lot of fraud (and when attempts are made to deal with fraud, those costs don't end up on the Medicare spreadsheet because it's handled by law enforcement.)
Hemm, let me try to put it another way regarding the question of whether healthcare is a 'right' or a 'commodity'
The Constitution describes our natural rights which govt can't take away from us, and which govt has an obligation to protect from other citizens who might try to take away from us.
You can't include in that category things that don't exist unless another citizen chooses to provide them for you. Healthcare is such a thing- a commodity, in that sense.
Now, you can certainly say that healthcare is a unique sort of commodity that carries with it some moral obligation, and for that reason we as a people can choose to subjugate some rights to the govt in order to permit the govt to act as a distributing agent for the healthcare commodity- rather than allowing it to be distributed purely according to free market forces. We already do that to a great extent.
But if you try to say that healthcare isn't a commodity at all, there are two problems with that. One is that however much we'd like to suspend the laws of supply and demand, they are as persistent as the law of gravity. And the second problem is that the amount of power that we have to turn over to the govt in order to give it complete authority in the rationing of the limited healthcare resources, is IMO beyond the amount of trust that our government has earned. Until it can prove that it can better handle the costs of the 40% of our healthcare system that it currently oversees, I can't imagine why we'd expand its reach over the rest of the system.
Let's make a deal. I'll pay taxes for your health care when you demonstrate you can do 10 pushups, run a mile in any time, and stop eating quad-stacker shitburgers.
If I'm paying for it, I get to require you take care of yourself and don't neglect MY property.
Otherwise, I hear the French like their health care plan. Feel free to move there.
And before you start screaming, I'm an immigrant from the UK and Canada, and enrolled in the VA system here, and you can take their health care programs and shove them up your ass.
Well said C Stanley
Hence my point about many physicians running for the hills at the current reembursement rates if a single payer system is implemented. It would put the typical salary of a primary care provider equal to that of Germany (about 50k). Germany is having a huge problem at this time with many of their physicians leaving to other countries. I am saying there are too many flaws in the current system to somehow justify adopting it across the boards. As I have stated several times, costs need to be addressed prior to anything else, once that is under control then lets re-evaluate.
As to healthcare being a right, I would have to agree with C-Stanley, someone had to sacrifice years of their life and make massive financial and familial concessions in order to become a physician. Therefore claiming it is your right is at the sacrifice of someone else, hence it can not be your right. I will say it is your right to go out and go to school for 12 years and pay 300k in tuition and expenses and provide your own healthcare.
CS
Let me clarify what is clearly a tough point for us to mutually understand.
“You can't include in that category things that don't exist unless another citizen chooses to provide them for you. Healthcare is such a thing- a commodity, in that sense.”
When I state that health care is a right, I am not attempting to say that government must provide the care directly. I of course agree that those who provide the physical care have every right to be paid just like every other profession. The government's position for the service of health care is well documented. Federal funds support the profession by providing funds for schooling, funds for hospitals, aned care for those who cannot afford the costs. The University Teaching Hospital here in town regularly receives such funds. Additionally, all hospitals must respond to emergency room vists even if the patient is uninsured, and the government mandated that resonse along with funds to help offset these costs. Thus, the government has demonstrated a belief that the right of health care service is fundamental.
Health insurance, the commodities market's private insurance entity, is another matter. This “pool” insurance is devised for making a profit for the shareholders, a great American tradition. Earlier in the thread, I think it was jazz who pointed out that health insurance functions like car or house insurance pools. Someone else responded that the comparison is a problem not only because people's lives are not equatable to people's cars. Most importantly, they also went on to point out that many (or most?) states also have public plans for those who cannot get insurance due to risk factors. Again, we have an established pro forma response to a private concern's intended omissions. What private company would serve a high risk group? Because insurance is required by the government, the concordant support follows logically.
I believe this argument was demonstrated with the First National Bank of the US. It came into being to offset the excesses of private banks of the time; fraud, inflation, and wild ly gyrating booms and busts. Jefferson said that the bank's formation was not found anywhere in the Constitution, so it was illegal for the government to create such an institution. Hamilton's view, however, became the view that has now come down to us.
I believe this comparison may be useful to our discussion. Private banks were driven by the profit margin exclusively, and the formation of the US bank had at its core a desire for the general welfare of the nation's economy. Jefferson who fought the bank idea ironically had no problem buying half a continent. From where does he draw that right?
Don't forget your insurance card
Hemm D,
See as you worded it I can agree, but the key facet is who pays for your right? It appears that you think others should be responsible for paying for everyones “right”. EMTALA was put into place so people could not be left on the ER floor to die, we will always care for patients, the question boils down to who is responsible for the bill. Single payer system places the burdon of everyone elses “right” in their wallets. I am for reducing costs and reducing insurance premiums, regulating them, and vouchers for those who meet certain income criteria, but people need to have some sort of stake in this. As stated earlier, not for profit works with some changes to the regulations of not for profit health insurance. If you think healthcare costs are obnoxious now, lets continue on without addressing costs and implement a single payer system. Care here will become even more subpar.
nice mike
you talk to your mom with that mouth?
I'll assume from the fact that because you're new to this country you don't realize we support the right of everybody to make a complete fool of themselves. As to your quaint idea that people must meet your criteria for your tax support, I have but one question.
For those who are wheelchair bound or have been in the past, suffer from pre-existing conditions that their insurance company has dropped, or generally can't meet your standard, please explain they should apply for your largess?
Maybe you should develop that muscle between your ears before you go making lazily thought out comments.
jhayes
I think your argument suffers from what we already do. We all pay for the poor patient, and pay more than we should because private insurance wants nothing to do with patient rights, just profit. I make the same argument you have heard before, why should I pay for the street outside your house, I don't use it. We share costs with each other all the time.
The cops, the mail, the tax advantages given to corporations, we pay for these every day. Health care for the poor is a right, but the way we pay for it is the least efficient. Emergency rooms are high resource locations that don't need to be employed to cover what private insurance refuses.
Obviously, exceptions should be made for those with bona fide disabilities.
But if your only “disabilities” are smoking cigarettes, eating greaseburgers and surfiing for pr0n instead of getting exercise, why should anyone be obligated to interfere with your slow suicide?
Though of course, if we tax cigarettes the way they do in Europe, it might deter a few people.
So let's see: 42% of the population supports national health care. That's 127,705,084 people. Times $100 each, $12,770,508,400. Sounds like you can buy all the health care insurance you want on a yearly basis if you just work together.
And if you think I'm rude, you should hear my English mother on the subject.
[...] On this morning’s edition of Morning Joe on MSNBC, Congressman Anthony Weiner (D-NY) showed up to talk about his version of health care reform which he will be pushing for a vote on in September. He also expressed regret about President Obama’s More Infant Allergy News [...]
I have no problem paying for schools. Schools educate useful members of society. Of course, private schools are tremendously better at it.
I have no problem paying for roads IN MY TOWN. Those roads provide access to services, like trash pickup, which I pay for, and delivery, which I pay for, and the post office, which supports itself and is not a taxpayer funded entity for about 15 years now (Except, of course, for the $47 billion or so injection a few years ago, to keep it “competitive”).
What do I gain from paying for your bypass, now? The “Benefit” of being able to pay more taxes to support you in a nursing home?
Have you actually read the bill in question? If you don't have insurance, or don't want it, or can't afford it, you'll nevertheless be required to pay for it, because your money increases the pool for others. If you reach a catastrophic level of care, the government will be able to cancel your care (as it does in most nations that have public health care, btw).
Go try Britain's health care for a decade. Then try Canada's. Then we'll talk. And if you like them, feel free to stay there. You have an absolute right to leave America for a better place, if you can find one.
MichaelZWilliamson
“But if your only “disabilities” are smoking cigarettes, eating greaseburgers and surfiing for pr0n instead of getting exercise, why should anyone be obligated to interfere with your slow suicide?”
I guess you expect me to pay for your shin splints, stress fractures, and pulled muscles? Of course the system would pay for your disabilities like everyone else.
You appear to be young, healthy, and indestructible. Next time you're out running, I hope that careless driver chowing down on cheeseburgers doesn't provide you with a pre-existing condition that your insurance company uses to drop you. You'd be hurt and bankrupt in no time.
Hemm D,
Yes, I understand will still pay, but they are still accountable. The right arguement is lost when it requires financial, time, and familial sacrifices to provide said “right”. I am someone who will have to pay more in order to provide people their right, therefore it should be my right to require they live up to certain standards, no smoking, drinking, exercise 5x/wk for 30min or more. Since I am required to pay for their right, I should be able to require that many change their lifestyles or is that not my right?
As to your other statements, street, police etc etc is local govt and everyone has access to it, there is a large difference to the federal govt taking over healthcare. As I stated, I want to see everyone covered, but people need to have a stake in the system otherwise it is a few paying for everyone and how can anyone change if the responsibility of the bill is on everyone else? It is the old adage you will appreciate something far more if you pay for it yourself.
Hemm D,
your arguement on pulled muscles etc is extremely flawed. We all know that 5% of the population consumes over 50% of the resources. These are not your healthy people, you have debated well until that post.