Monday, August 10, 2009

Health Care Facts

Do ridiculous right-wing talking points about death panels and forced abortions have you confused about health care reform? Are you looking for some sane, reason-based discussion about health care reform?

If so, check out the new White House web site, Health Insurance Reform Reality Check.


Lou said...

HaHaHa, just when I start having a little respect for you you use Obama as proof obama-care is good. Here is the reason there is talk about rationing, death-care the loss of private care. Because it is in the bill that Obama has never read!! It is not his & most importantly it has NEVER worked.

Yes, we know everyone who disproves is a republican, a racist or a lobbyist for the healthcare industry. As Hillary once declared, 'we are sick and tired of everyone who disproves of this administration" being labeled a racist.

Maybe if Obama had some credibility--eh no I wouldn't buy in then either. It is the gummit.

Uh Oh, better watch my back since CSM might turn me in and the Obama-unionthugs will be in route to take me out!!

Erasing Erasing DOD 5 passes....gone!

csm said...

Oh, Lou, there you go again. I refuse to participate in your delusion as to what my post actually says. Re-read it again, and engage that thing between your ears.

My thoughts on health care are that it needs to be reformed. If health care is not reformed in the USA it will eventually bankrupt us.

I also think a single-payer system would be best. That would root out the inefficiencies in the system.

I also fully understand that many Americans, of all political stripes, distrust the government. This in spite of the many things it has done that work. (Yes, I know there are things it has tried that do not work well, and other things it hasn't even tried that it should - although some will disagree with that last statement).

Lou, you can gyrate and wail all you want (obviously) - and so can the birther teabagging nutballs out there. I just hope the nonsense does not derail the beginnings of health care reform because failing to reform - and just hopping merrily down the trail we are on - will not work much longer.

Oh, and Lou, I was a bit surprised that you had posted a czar-free comment.

Xenon said...

Czar is Barracks language so isn't it fair to use it? You know if this passes there will be a new health care thug (Czar)and a Public Dissent thug (Czar) controlling the industry.

I have been most amused on how the Demos are whining about public demonstrations when they just finished up 7 years of protesting hatefully toward Bush. All of sudden protesting is not American? How whiny of them.


Agreed, X. So when is dissent UnAmerican?

I really do think Obama thinks this direction is the correct one, but he is wrong. Why someone without any experience with running companies or working in markets(yes, healthcare is a marketplace even if the single payor fans get their wish)feels he knows what is best does not make it so. When hundreds of millions of fellow citizens make decisions involving all facets of their lives outside of healthcare, why is it they can't when it comes to healthcare? Since WWII, the rights of consumers have not been given a chance in the field of healthcare. The system we have now is NOT a purely market driven segment because the end user is not paying(in the vast majority of cases)for the goods and services they need, someone else is paying, hence no incentive to shop around.

I say give the uninsured a healthcare savings account(this would be cheaper than any idea coming out of Washington) and let them have a say in how those dollars are spent. And the beauty of the plan, anything left over at the end of the year is theirs to keep which would be an avenue to building wealth.


One more thing about health savings accounts; it limits the need for health insurance, the demon the Democrats are focusing all the blame on.

Lou said...

Jefferson encouraged dissent, Obama and the rest of his party likes to call it unpatriotic. I have also noticed an increase in using the race card if you dissent from Obama.
Of course they are the antheisis of Jefferson.
Obama is also using the old line if you don't support his plan then you want status quo. The arrogance of the man is astounding. SO Bawdyscot, your plan while sensible represents status quo. Sorry

Seriously, others have presented this idea but Obama truly wants the government to control all facets. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.


Lou, I get what you are saying, and you might agree with me, but health savings accounts have not been given a chance to any great degree so they cannot be the status quo.

csm said...

Democrats are whining about dissent?

Bullshit! I heard Obama saying just yesterday that debate is great. What is not great is the mewling, counter-productive stupidity spewing from the mouths of backward-ass rednecks at town hall meetings. You have an issue you want to raise, do it civilly and you will be taken seriously. Or start a blog and rant there. Bloggers are notorious for being uncivil.

Obama and the rest of his party likes to call it unpatriotic?

Bullshit! I defy you to show me a quote where President Obama calls dissent unpatriotic. C'mon, you fool, back up your stupidity or stop it!

Czar is Barack's language?

Bullshit! The use of the word 'czar' is informal and the 'title' was first used to refer to William E. Simon's appointment in 1973 as the head of the Federal Energy Administration... in a Republican administration.

The term is most closely associated with the drug czar. This position, too, was established under the administration of President Nixon. Jerome Jaffe was the chief of the Special Action Office for Drug Abuse Prevention (SAODAP), an executive agency created by Nixon, a Republican.

So complaining about President Obama's so-called 'czars' and thinking it is something he dreamed up - is right wing lunacy.

The system we have now is NOT a purely market driven segment because the end user is not paying?

Bawdy, I think you know that there are NO purely market driven segments. And there never will be.


The auto industry USED to be a purely market driven segment.

Lou said...

For some of you who may want some truth about healthcare and not the lies put our by Obama and his cohorts I provide this link. AARP has already seperated themselves obamacare after his staged political speech.

David Lewis is a professor at Duke University but he analyzes the proposed bill as an ordinary citizen. I certainly would trust what he has to say over the Chicago political machine in the White House.

Happy reading.

Bawdyscot I never called your proposal status quo. That would be Obama.

csm said...

*confused look*

Obama is bad because he wants to change things but he is also status quo?


Norman, please coordinate.

csm said...

Not true about the automobile segment Bawdy. Government regulated many parts of the auto industry already - catalytic converters? licensing? inspections?

Xenon said...

It is telling that the same party who were outraged by the Bush big government measures is supporting big government today.

It just goes to show big government really was not the problem.



I never said, nor do I advocate the eradication of all regulations governing markets, but a market driven segment of our economy has a manufacturer(or service provider) and a customer and the government stays out of the transaction between them. When someone buys a car, the government is not involved in the actual transfer of product for money and the government doesn't have a stake in that decision, until now. This is what I mean when I talk of a market driven segment.

With the government getting in between the patient and the provider you lose any market incentives to save money, because the patient is using the government's money(esstentially all our money) instead of their own. And when the government takes over more and more of the relationship between patient and provider it becomes less and less market driven(with the lower cost incentives)and more and more what the government(with all the political baggage, abortion for example)wants to choose for society.

This country was formed for the individual first. With the government few mandating for all American individuals, we all lose, and for what, the mental well-being of the government few?

Add this to the trampling of the rights of the healthcare provider and you have bad policy when considering our Constitutional heritage.

Lou said...

Obama & Axlerod (what a perfect last name) have gone to new levels of transparency and violation of lobbying laws. Spamming the American people with their last desperate attempt to sell us on Obama-care. I was mystified when I got mine since all I did was watch a video and comment on a .gov site.

Can you imagine the outrage of the csms of the world of Rove had pulled such a stunt. (smile:))

We dangerous un-american protesters have to be watched every minute.


All this UnAmerican dissent seems to be working to some degree as the President and his staff seems to be backtracking on the "public option".

And just to show you liberals can be just as stupid as conservatives, this morning on the Diane Rheim show a caller asked if the insurance companies are so good and efficient at what they do why are they so scared to have a "public option". She thought she was real smart, but what she doesn't realize is that the gigantic advantages the government and it's subsidiaries have over any public company in any sector. They can strong arm providers, change rules and print money. All you need to remember is the advantages Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae had in the mortgage business and how that shit ends up.

csm said...

Oh, there is no shortage of stupidity on either side of the aisle!

And yes, Obama is backtracking on the public option. Shame on him. My hope is that he is doing it to rally the lefties to voice their concerns and put pressure on Congress to ensure a public option remains. But instead of reality, that is likely just wishful thinking on my part.

And again Lou, I remain confused as to what you are talking about. Spamming? What was the spam? What about it caused you alarm? When you don't describe what you are talking about you appear to be a raving lunatic. Or perhaps...

csm said...


Got it. And I know there is a basic difference between the mindset we each have on healthcare. Yours differs from mine - and I understand and appreciate that. I think basic healthcare should be treated more as a right than a service. To me, and I know this is a stretch, ensuring the health of our citizens helps to promote the common good. As an analogy, more like fire fighting. When your house is on fire you don't worry about whether you can afford to pay the firemen who arrive to put out the fire. The analogy isn't perfect, but it gets at the gist of my "beliefs" here.

I know there are folks who disagree with this. That is fine. This is a "free" country. I just wish the debate were framed appropriately and we discussed the actual costs, benefits, and issues - instead of listening to chowderheads scream about Hitler and death panels.

csm said...

Oh, one other note: I've heard many actual healthcare providers loudly advocate for healthcare reform. The overhead and cost of processing insurance forms is extremely onerous to many of them. I've got an uncle who is a doctor in a small town who would welcome healthcare reform.


Two points to your last posts.

1. I have come across the firefighter analogy before and consider it more like apples and oranges because we don't look to the federal and even state(is there a state that provides fire fighting?) governments to provide the fire fighting service. Firefighting is a local service provided by local providers. Let me ask you this, would you like to see a national police force?

2. With healthcare savings plans it would be very likely there would actually be less need for standard health insurance. Granted, if a health savings plan is to work as intended a catastrophic health insurance plan would have to be purchased, but this is not the usual health plan as the patient would be paying for all the regular doctor's visits and tests out of the remaining funds in the plan. The patient could always purchase a regular health plan with that money, but if the person is relatively healthy I'll bet they don't. Many of the uninsured are the young who have jobs which do not provide it or they don't enroll for whatever reason. Also with all the catastropic plans being sold the price for those will come down, competition, dontcha know. And lastly, this could end up a way for the young and poor to build wealth on a yearly basis(anything left over at the end of the year is theirs to keep) which has to warm the cockles of any liberal heart.

Lou said...

Obama is not only backtracking on the public option but now the White House is revising the illegal tracking of American's email addresses.

CSM, lobbying through unsolicited emails is illegal for the Feds. I hope that clears that up for you. I just ASSumed you understood that.

Obama must backtrack since he now realizes he will never get the votes. I have a great idea. Take the 45 million uninsured Americans and put therm on Medicare. If they balk, make it illegal to be uninsured. Its almost bankrupt anyhow. Fix that by putting Washington on the plan.

Notice how our Supreme leader and his knights never had any intention of putting themselves on the obamacare plan? That is all you need to know to understand the plan(s) sucked.


That won't work Lou because Medicare has so many holes in it you still need a supplemental insurance plan to keep from paying the co-insurance. With Medicare A at a skilled nursing facility that is $133.50 per day!

Lou said...

Oh I know it won't work Bawdyscot. I was only being salacious. Obama's plan won't work either but that doesn't stop him from trying. He hasn't realized this yet, but we can't support on own welfare state, 15 million Mexicans and continue to run up debt without bankrupting the nation.

Top that off with making it as difficult as possible for small business to succeed and you have the makings of a has been nation. That what we get by putting our nation in the hands of an inexperienced narcissist.

csm said...


Obama's plan won't work? OK. What is Obama's plan? Please explain the part or parts that won't work?

To me, the biggest problem is the inconsistency of the message from President Obama. I challenge anyone to explain just what Obama's plan actually is!

I agree with the notion of putting bureaucrats on the same plan that they are establishing. Would love to wave a magic wand and have Congress' health care plan disappear as of mid 2010 and force them to be on the same plan they implement for the country. Of course, this is not feasible, but I love the idea!

And Bawdy, can't say I've given your health care account notion enough thought to agree or disagree. It seems to have enough merit to warrant including it in the discussion. You might be surprised, but I feel a bit uncomfortable with the notion of giving the leftover funds to the individual. I know, not very liberal of me. That seems a bit like encouraging folks to avoid the doctor and preventative health care.

Regarding firefighting, it is not a national firefighting force, but in most cases in big cities it is a local government job. Paid for by our tax dollars. Hell, let's just let the free market handle it. OK. Your house is on fire. Give the nice man in the red hat a big check or your house is a goner!

And we DO have a national police force. Who do you think enforces drug policy? And what about the FBI?

And there in Lou's last post is the ridiculous right wing canard about small business suffering. But hasn't raising the minimum wage (the last thing that was going to bankrupt small business) already damaged small biz beyond repair? No? I wonder why? Oh, that's right - the right wing is full of shit!


"but I feel a bit uncomfortable with the notion of giving the leftover funds to the individual. I know, not very liberal of me. That seems a bit like encouraging folks to avoid the doctor and preventative health care."

You could say it would encourage not seeing the doctor and avoiding preventative care, but I choose to believe it would give the patient(customer)control over his/her health care; is this test necessary?, do I need all these drugs?, should I get a third opinion?. Individuals are entrusted to shop for just about all other needs and for the most part make wise and frugal decisions. I would also venture most Americans are pretty well versed in medical matters aided by the information-at-your-fingertips Internet. When people are spending their own money, you would be surprised at how well they do and this WILL bring down the cost of healthcare, just like the cost of any high tech segment does. Nothing the government(note I am not using the Obama name as this is really Congress' baby at this point, Obama has no plan, just ideas)has proffered has been forecasted to lower healthcare costs. And as I have said, this could give the poor a chance to build some wealth.

"And we DO have a national police force. Who do you think enforces drug policy? And what about the FBI?"

You are right on this point of course, but I was envisioning a national policeman on every streetcorner, you know a "real" national police force. Lately, I have been doing some thinking on the "law and order" society we have today; the pendulum has been swinging to the prosecutor's side for quite awhile now to the defendent's detriment and that pendulum needs to start swinging back otherwise our civil rights will suffer. Maybe this has to do with my being so close in proximity to the "Toughest Sheriff in the Country" Joe Arpaio and our "Tough on Crime" County Attorney Andrew Thomas, both power-hungry dickwads in the first degree.

For the survival of individual freedom we need laws, but we have too many laws and way too many bad laws on all governmental levels.

This leads me to one last comment for now; I read an interesting piece in Reason awhile ago concerning the approval of Sonia Sotomayor. The basic premise was the Senate was wasting it's time asking her about her speeches of yore, but missed an opportunity to ask her about her thoughts on defendent's rights as she was a very good prosecutor for many years and some of her decisions as a judge left some things in this area to be desired when considering an individual's rights in their time of great need of them.

Lou said...

I challenge anyone to explain just what Obama's plan actually is!

Ah, exactly which is why spending his time whining at townhall meetings stupid. But, a the same time he keeps referring to his plan and telling the dissenters what is and is not in his plan.

I think the man is mad!:) Its sad he is already becoming a joke.

My comments on small businesses comes directly from well, small business. I work with them regularly. I dunno, I think they would no more than Obama since he has never run anything in his life other than his mouth.

Right Wing Out!

Anonymous said...

He is actually talking about putting a plan together. He just put the cart before the horse.

csm said...

I think Obama has kind of screwed up in how he has progressed with the whole health care reform issue. He should have a consistent message that he delivers from his bully pulpit on what needs to be done. I think turning the details over to Congress was, unfortunately, correct. That was a big part of why Hillary Clinton's plan failed to move forward. By giving Congress the lead it empowers them to be involved. However, Congress, as is typical of them, is plodding, confused, and coming up with contradictory plans. Of course, that might just be the nature of the beast.

The other thing the president has done poorly is not anticipating the venom and hatred that the right can conjur up. And then not having a viable plan to combat it from his bully pulpit (again).

Of course, to be fair, there probably was no way to avoid the barbs and arrows being flung his way. But he could have been better prepared.

Cowcharge said...

No one knows what this so-called plan will do or not do, least of all those who are writing (but not reading?) it.

If you know of something that the government does more efficiently and of higher quality for less money than the private sector in the same activity, I'd love to know what it is. When such a significant percentage of the population trusts neither the motives nor the competence of the government, the administration NEEDS to do something to put a little faith in them back in the people's minds. Saying "To the contrary, it will be simply wonderful" over and over again doesn't do it for me. I want them to tell me precisely how it will work, and why I should expect anything better than $600 toilet seats out of the government.