Why aren't the right-wing talking heads denouncing emergency care as "socialist"?

[oladub]

Most people don't disagree with that.

Unfortunately, when pressed by a constitutient, Howard Dean himself explained why the authors of HR 3200 choose to address the areas that they did.

http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.aspx?v=Gd8zprIrSU

This needs to be seen to be believed.

MCP-001, Great link. I applaud Howard Dean for his honesty in answering this question. But he only pointed out one half of the equation. Politicians like Teddy Kennedy are on the take. They are paid off to write a plan that is acceptable to their paymasters. Teddy Kennedy, for instance, raked in $988,623 in campaign contributions from lawyers and another $588,000 from the health care industry in 2005-2020.
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicia...=20&cycle=2010

elganned, I suggest that you give us your definition of 'socialism'. Two of us have answered citing our own definition being 'ownership of the means of production' and you have ignored those answers. If you offer your own definition, perhaps the responses will change.

[MCP-001]

So you're position is that emergency services shouldn't be accessible to all, only to those who can afford to pay for them?

You word it so that it sounds like someone is "owed" this, but my short answer is yes.

There are a lot of things in life that we need to pay for, which are necessary to survive: food, clothing and shelter come to mind. Utilities and transportation come up there as well.

I failed to see the push for free food for all?

Free clothing for all?

Free heat/AC?

Free cars?

Free homes?

So why should health care be any different?

I'm also at a loss as to why people feel that the federal government, an entity that has not had a stellar record of running anything efficiently itself [[see here) , can run a sustainable health care program any better that the health insurance industry?

[rb336]

Most people don't disagree with that.

Unfortunately, when pressed by a constitutient, Howard Dean himself explained why the authors of HR 3200 choose to address the areas that they did.

http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.aspx?v=Gd8zprIrSU

This needs to be seen to be believed.

Tort reform? that is SUCH a miniscule part of the problem - it's essentially shooting a water pistol at someone when your in a hurricane. only 4 out of 1000 [[or 0.4%) of medical malpractice suits succeed. can you say Red Herring?

[MCP-001]

Tort reform? that is SUCH a miniscule part of the problem - it's essentially shooting a water pistol at someone when your in a hurricane. only 4 out of 1000 [[or 0.4%) of medical malpractice suits succeed. can you say Red Herring?

You obviously didn't watch the video.

Watch it again, tell me the exact number that the person gave, and tell me that it wasn't significant.

[elganned]

elganned, I suggest that you give us your definition of 'socialism'. Two of us have answered citing our own definition being 'ownership of the means of production' and you have ignored those answers. If you offer your own definition, perhaps the responses will change.

I have not "ignored" the answers; they didn't require commentary, as they stand as themselves. As bats would say, "A is A". Your definition is your definition.

I'm wondering how the proposed health-care plan that is causing all this bruhaha, the so-called "public option", qualifies as "socialism" under your definition, however. The implication in your definition [[if that is the one being followed by conservatives, which is questionable) as applied by the current right-wing spokespersons is that insurance companies are the "means of production" rather than the health-care professionals themselves, since they seem to be worried more about public payment rather than public ownership.

Conversely, under your definition if health-care providers are the "means of production", then how is it "socialism" if they get paid from a different source, i.e., the government vs. the private insurance companies? Neither the government nor the insurance companies do or will own the health-care providers.

Or do you mean to define it as "public ownership of the means of production"? That's a slightly different formulation, but I don't see how it alters the result. The health-care professionals are still not owned by the government.

If on the other hand you use a slightly broadened definition, that being "public control of the means of production", which is how I believe the term is being used in the current debate, then our present system of delivering emergency care would certainly qualify in the sense that legal mandates control where service is rendered.

If that is the case, then the pundits should be screaming about current emergency care delivery as well as the proposed health-care "overhaul". But such is not the case. Curious, don't you think?

[elganned]

You word it so that it sounds like someone is "owed" this, but my short answer is yes.

Re-word it however pleases you, then; the question remains the same.

I now have to inquire how such a system could be administered, however. You could bill people after the fact, but as I asked previously isn't that what we do now? People who can't afford the cost of an emergency procedure currently declare bankruptcy or simply don't pay the bill, which still leaves the ER short of income and forces cost hikes on the persons who can pay. [[Blackstone said it succinctly: "A man without assets can break his contracts with impugnity." You can get a judgement, but you can't get blood from a turnip no matter how hard you squeeze; if the money isn't there, it isn't there.)

The only practical method of efficiently delivering emergency care only to those who can afford it is to check the patient's bank account at time of presenting or getting paid in cash up front before administering service. Otherwise, we have the same system as we do now for all practical purposes.

Is that what you propose?

[oladub]

Tort reform? that is SUCH a miniscule part of the problem - it's essentially shooting a water pistol at someone when your in a hurricane. only 4 out of 1000 [[or 0.4%) of medical malpractice suits succeed. can you say Red Herring?

BS, Why are you carrying the torch for these attorneys by repeating their talking points? Medical malpractice insurance is equal to about 7% of doctor pay. Hospitals, nursing homes, and pharmaceutical also have large liability insurance costs. These are passed on to customers whether or not a doctor is ever in court. It has already added at least 7% to medical costs. Remember, Obama is only trying to extend free health care benefits to 15% of the population, 22% of whom are illegal aliens.

Insured patients, in turn, have then purchase 7% more health insurance than they otherwise would. If "The average employer-sponsored premium for a family of four costs close to $13,000 a year". http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml [[7%x$13,000x260,000.000insuredAmericans)/families of 4=$59,500,000,000/year. That's a rough figure.

This is before adding the cost of medical administrators who have to wade through all the insurance paperwork. The effect of tort reform would make health care a lot more affordable to most Americans and shrink the population of the uninsured so government costs would be significantly less. The .4% figure you presented is of little consequence to the cost the discussion of tort reform savings.

[MCP-001]

MCP-001, Great link. I applaud Howard Dean for his honesty in answering this question. But he only pointed out one half of the equation. Politicians like Teddy Kennedy are on the take. They are paid off to write a plan that is acceptable to their paymasters. Teddy Kennedy, for instance, raked in $988,623 in campaign contributions from lawyers and another $588,000 from the health care industry in 2005-2020.
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicia...=20&cycle=2010

...

I don't care too much for Howard Dean, but his credibility really shot up with me when he said what he did on camera.

I highly doubt that this clip will make the evening news cycle, I hope that it goes viral so that people really know why things went the way it did with HR 3200 [[and apparently HR 3400)

[ccbatson]

Dean is a pro dictatorship socialist tyrant...he deserves zero respect, unless evil is to be respected.

[MCP-001]

Dean is a pro dictatorship socialist tyrant...he deserves zero respect, unless evil is to be respected.

I'm not nominating him for humanitarian of the year.

But all I have to say here is watch the clip, CC.

Watch the clip...

[ccbatson]

That is a commendable answer? The legislators were cowardly? [[although Dean doesn't call them that). The absence of strenuous opposition to this omission on Dean's part is unacceptable. It is as if he believes that his explanation excuses him from demanding that the bill be written correctly. However, even if tort reform were in there, the main form and thrust of the bill is to steal individual liberty from the populace. Therefore, no sugar coating can render this piece of excrement acceptable.

[MCP-001]

That is a commendable answer? The legislators were cowardly? [[although Dean doesn't call them that). The absence of strenuous opposition to this omission on Dean's part is unacceptable. It is as if he believes that his explanation excuses him from demanding that the bill be written correctly. However, even if tort reform were in there, the main form and thrust of the bill is to steal individual liberty from the populace. Therefore, no sugar coating can render this piece of excrement acceptable.

Of course they were cowardly! The hubris displayed by Rep Moran just adds insult to injury.

I never expected Dean to lead the charge for tort reform, nor do I expect him to lead the charge in the future. But the fact that he let the cat out of the bag [[literally) still says a lot. You cannot deny that.

And HR 3200 is still in many ways inferior to HR 3400.

[ccbatson]

Why would expect the king of tyrannical fascist cowards to lead a charge against something that is completely consistent with their own evil agenda? That is not my point...what I am saying is that he [[Dean) is not to be commended for admitting this corruption.

[rb336]

BS, Why are you carrying the torch for these attorneys by repeating their talking points? Medical malpractice insurance is equal to about 7% of doctor pay. Hospitals, nursing homes, and pharmaceutical also have large liability insurance costs. These are passed on to customers whether or not a doctor is ever in court. It has already added at least 7% to medical costs. Remember, Obama is only trying to extend free health care benefits to 15% of the population, 22% of whom are illegal aliens.

Insured patients, in turn, have then purchase 7% more health insurance than they otherwise would. If "The average employer-sponsored premium for a family of four costs close to $13,000 a year". http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml [[7%x$13,000x260,000.000insuredAmericans)/families of 4=$59,500,000,000/year. That's a rough figure.

This is before adding the cost of medical administrators who have to wade through all the insurance paperwork. The effect of tort reform would make health care a lot more affordable to most Americans and shrink the population of the uninsured so government costs would be significantly less. The .4% figure you presented is of little consequence to the cost the discussion of tort reform savings.

Guess what? all your arguments are for reforming the system, esp. the insurance part of it, rather than for tort reform. I agree that there needs to be more latitude for judges to toss bogus claims on their asses [[both in malpractice -"the xray machine destroyed my psychic ability" and otherwise "the hot coffee burned me"), and I think when they do, the attorneys filing the bogus claims should be liable for the expenses of the other side. what doesn't need to happen is to take away the only means of redress available in legit cases

[rb336]

Dean is a pro dictatorship socialist tyrant...he deserves zero respect, unless evil is to be respected.

off your meds again?

[ccbatson]

True reform requires a huge shift towards a private enterprise approach. Then, and only then, can appropriate legislation be put in place to protect just commerce between parties concerned....ONE OF WHOM IS NOT THE GOVERNMENT.

[rb336]

True reform requires a huge shift towards a private enterprise approach. Then, and only then, can appropriate legislation be put in place to protect just commerce between parties concerned....ONE OF WHOM IS NOT THE GOVERNMENT.

and 3000 or so WHO ARE NOT PRIVATE INSURANCE COMPANIES [[AKA LEGAL THIEVES)

[ccbatson]

Is anyone forced to buy insurance from a private company?

Is anyone restricted from engaging in purchasing said insurance [[illegal across state lines, limits on HSAs, etc)? By whom?

[oladub]

Guess what? all your arguments are for reforming the system, esp. the insurance part of it, rather than for tort reform. I agree that there needs to be more latitude for judges to toss bogus claims on their asses [[both in malpractice -"the xray machine destroyed my psychic ability" and otherwise "the hot coffee burned me"), and I think when they do, the attorneys filing the bogus claims should be liable for the expenses of the other side. what doesn't need to happen is to take away the only means of redress available in legit cases

The insurance costs I referenced are only the roughly 7% of health insurance costs attributable to legal costs. Get the lawyers out of the equation and seven percent of the costs are eliminated. Since about 45% of health care costs are already paid for by government in the US, the Tort reform savings would be even higher than I suggested. My numbers only applied to private insurance premiums.

[jams]

why can't obama tell the truth and have an honest debate?

Because some are locked into their hatred and don't listen.

[Lorax]

Because some are locked into their hatred and don't listen.

You're right.

Here's a little more of that hate just spewed by another sitting Rethuglican congresswoman:

http://www.dailymail.com/ap/ApTopStories/200908270780

[ccbatson]

I had long ago, prior to the health care debate, pointed out how cryptic and deceptive Obama is/was. He is very good at it, however, in the light of day, as the inevitable consequences of his radical socialist agenda come through, the truth can be seen exposing his deceptions.

[elganned]

why can't obama tell the truth and have an honest debate?

Why can't you post without begging the question?
You must be taking lessons at the "Ccbatson School Of Drive-By Posting".

[elganned]

True reform requires a huge shift towards a private enterprise approach. Then, and only then, can appropriate legislation be put in place to protect just commerce between parties concerned....ONE OF WHOM IS NOT THE GOVERNMENT.

You still haven't answered the question I posed to you in post #35. Do you oppose universal access to emergency care regardless of ability to pay?

[Lorax]

I had long ago, prior to the health care debate, pointed out how cryptic and deceptive Obama is/was. He is very good at it, however, in the light of day, as the inevitable consequences of his radical socialist agenda come through, the truth can be seen exposing his deceptions.

"Light of day?"

You're venturing out of the Batcave during the day? Brave, aren't we.