The McCain Plan for Health Insecurity
By Steve Hynd Saturday Oct 18, 2008 5:45pmAt the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. David Blumenthal reviews McCain's healthcare plans - and finds the same old Republican "I'm alright, Jack" philosphy. (h/t Avedon)
John McCain emerges not as a maverick or centrist but as a radical social conservative firmly in the grip of the ideology that animates the domestic policies of President George W. Bush. The central purpose of President Bush's health policy, and John McCain's, is to reduce the role of insurance and make Americans pay a larger part of their health care bills out of pocket. Their embrace of market forces, fierce antagonism toward government, and determination to force individuals to have more "skin in the game" are overriding — all other goals are subsidiary. Indeed, the Republican commitment to market-oriented reforms is so strong that, to attain their vision, Bush and McCain seem willing to take huge risks with the efficiency, equity, and stability of our health care system. Specifically, the McCain plan would profoundly threaten the current system of employer-sponsored insurance on which more than three fifths of Americans depend, increase reliance on unregulated individual insurance markets (which are notoriously inefficient), and leave the number of uninsured Americans virtually unchanged. A side effect of the McCain plan would be to threaten access to adequate insurance for millions of America's sickest citizens.
The main purposes of Mccain's plan appears to be to dump more money into private health insurer's coffers and enable insurers to dump bad risks (those currently covered but paying high premiums) onto the State by making insurance unaffordable for them:
In the individual market, administrative costs consume 30 to 50% of premiums, as compared with 12 to 15% in the large-group, employer-sponsored insurance market. The McCain plan, therefore, could cause administrative waste to skyrocket. Because of these high administrative expenses, and because insurers want to avoid sick people, individual health insurance tends to be less generous than employer-sponsored plans, requiring higher deductibles and copayments and offering less coverage of preventive and catastrophic care. Perhaps most worrisome is that many chronically ill patients who lose employer-sponsored coverage will have trouble finding any insurance at all in the individual market. The McCain plan calls for deregulating private insurance markets — eliminating, for example, state requirements that insurers offer plans to persons with preexisting conditions.
To counter these side effects, McCain will offer a $2,500 tax credit for individuals and a $5,000 tax credit for families to help them purchase health insurance. But consider the math. The average family policy in the United States now costs about $12,000, of which the average employer contributes about 75% ($9,000). Thus, if they could find comparable insurance in the individual market, that coverage would cost families losing employer-sponsored insurance $4,000 more than they previously paid ($9,000 minus $5,000). Many of these families will enter the ranks of the uninsured.
All those new uninsured would join the ranks of those who wait until their health problem becomes an emergency and then head to EMS, increasing the cost of their care dramatically and leaving many unable to pay - at which point the State picks up a huge bill which could have been far lower if it had only been the healthcare provider in the first place.
The choice facing health care professionals, like all Americans, is basic: Who deserves to be trusted with the stewardship of America's health care system? The McCain proposal violates the bedrock principle that major health policy reforms should first do no harm. It would risk the viability of employer-sponsored insurance and the welfare of chronically ill Americans in pell-mell pursuit of a radical vision of consumer-driven health care. Senator McCain's plan does not demonstrate the kind of judgment needed in a potential commander in chief of our health care system.
Blumenthal is an unpaid Obama campaign adviser, so he's certainly biased - but the situation is actually worse than he admits. Not only is McCain's healthcare plan a disaster, but so is Obama's - although one on slo-mo - because there is no long-term viability in employer-sponsored health insurance. Companies and corportations are collapsing under the weight of such schemes. It';s significant that in 2004 big auto manufacturers begged Canada to keep its national healthcare system, so they could keep their own costs down and saty in business across North America. In 2003, GM spent $4.5 billion on health care for its US- based employees and retirees, at a cost of $1,200 per car, according to a GM spokesman. "If we cannot get our arms around this [healthcare] issue as a nation, our manufacturing base and many of our other businesses are in danger," warned Ford's Vice Chairman Allan Gilmour.
But the correct alternative to pick is a national health service, which could be funded at a level of 11% of GDP, higher than that of any other Western nation, without a single tax raise - if only insurance company profits and beaurocracy weren't sucking all the good out of the system. Dr. Steffie Woolhandler, co-author of a 2001 study and an Associate Professor of Medicine at Harvard, put it best:
We pay the world's highest health care taxes. But much of the money is squandered. The wealthy get tax breaks. And HMOs and drug companies pocket billions in profits at the taxpayers' expense. But politicians claim we can't afford universal coverage. Every other developed nation has national health insurance. We already pay for it, but we don't get it.
Deborah Burger, President of the California Nurses Association, says that in a supposedly civilized nation healthcare should be a right, not a responsibility:
Crossposted from Newshoggers
Login or Register to post comments.
Here's why americans need to be afraid, very afraid. The probability of a Palin presidency within two years is downright frightening and entirely possible, if not probable.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/...
I think that the McCain supporters prefer Palin and would have no problem with McCain not serving as POTUS.
Tell you what, let us go down the road to free health care for all, so eventually we can make the full circle and start over again, are you ready for it? I would say we are in the complacency to apathy stage.Electing Obama will push us into the next phase, let's do it.
Alexander Tytler, a 17th Century historian, studied the rise and fall of nations and taught what we now know as Tytler's Cycle.
A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who PROMISE the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.
The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:
* From bondage to spiritual faith;
* From spiritual faith to great courage;
* From courage to liberty;
* From liberty to abundance;
* From abundance to complacency;
* From complacency to apathy;
* From apathy to dependence;
* From dependence back into bondage.
Benjamin Franklin showed his understanding of this when he wrote, "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
You can contribute to the health of our great republic by living a self-reliant life, as well as helping those in need so that the government can stay in its proper sphere of protecting inalienable rights ONLY. The less our citizens depend on the government for their daily needs, the stronger our republic will be and the longer it will last.
That progression you cite is full of such nebulous concepts that you can make any civilization fit the bill. It's rather like a horoscope in that regard. I'm curious as to what your cure for democracy might be.
Here is the point, and I would like a very serious sincere reply please.
At what point will the left be happy? Where is the tipping point?
Is it when everyone makes the exact same money?
Is it when everyone has universal Health care?
Is it when everyone in the country has a home?
Is it when everyone can marry anyone, any race across the country with full rights?
Is it when the right to life is all but forgotten?
Is it when no one is allowed to own a gun, except for the government?
Is it when someone making 250k + pays all the taxes and anyone below that number pays none?
I would really like to know at what point would the left say, you know what, this is perfect, exactly the way we want it. Where does it end?
To answer your questions:
1) No one on the left ever suggested everyone should make the same amount of money.
2) Some of the most prosperous countries have universal healthcare, France, Australia, Japan, China.
3) I guess you don't mind stepping over homeless people, but it's not a very good sign for the values of a country. These days in the U.S., you can be "successful" and lose your home.
4) Yes, everyone should be able to marry anyone, that's called Freedom. If Americans don't want people to be free, we should damn well stop billing ourselves as a Free Country.
5) Nobody is pro-Abortion. Most Americans agree they don't want the government intervening in their personal health decisions though. I think you'd agree that's a very slippery slope.
6) Again, the Democrats have never suggested getting rid of guns, just sensible gun control. But no guns does work in many civilized countries. I doubt any amount of guns would stop the U.S. government from getting you if they wanted to.
7) I make over $200,000 a year, and I can tell you, most average Americans pay a higher tax rate than I do because of all the write-offs I get. Is that fair? I don't think so. I'm happy to pay my fair share. There are plenty of greedy people who'd rather not pay anything. Most are Republicans.
I'd like you to look at the other side, particularly after this economic meltdown. When will the Right be happy?
Is it when the top 0.1% of Americans own 99% of the wealth? Because under Bush, the top 1% went from owning 50% to 90% of all the wealth in America. And the top 0.1% now own 50% of everything.
Is it when only the richest Americans can afford to see a doctor, or have their sick child's life saved?
Is it when the State can tell you only Whites can marry Whites and Blacks can marry Blacks? Or when Muslims, Buddhists and other non-Christians have been rounded up and exterminated?
Is it when the State can tell you that your wife who was in a car accident has to die because they won't allow her to have a late-term abortion, even though this would kill the child as well? (Maybe you snicker here, but this nearly happened in New York State.)
Is it when automatic guns are allowed in schools, in airports, in every public place and by every person, whether they have mental problems or a criminal background?
Is it when nobody pays anything in taxes? And we just let everybody home school their kids, let the bridges and roads fall apart, let the markets regulate themselves...oh, that's right, all of that is happening right now.
Where does it end? Seems like we're pretty close to a Right-Wing Utopia right now.
Thank you for the intelligent post,
the fundamental question is this, can you please 100% of the people 100% of the time?
I would hope we could agree that on this question, the answer is no we cant. So where does that leave us as a country? Until all sides can find middle ground or one side gains the upper hand, we will always be stuck in this gray area.
On a side note, you actually quoted China...this disturbed me the most.
The point I am trying to make about money is this, at what point will the left be fine with they way the system is setup? For example if you make 250k, then you should pay half of that to taxes, but I would come out with 125k,would this be fair? I am sure the person making 25k a year would still say, wow that person is rich, they need to pay more.
Just an example mind you but one that goes to show there will always be someone else who makes more or less then you do and look at you as rich in their eyes.
"I would hope we could agree that on this question, the answer is no we cant. So where does that leave us as a country? Until all sides can find middle ground or one side gains the upper hand, we will always be stuck in this gray area."
That's very revealing. "Until one side gains the upper hand." Translation: Tyranny. The uninformed rabble will always lead us to ruin. The world is full of people who want what you got. The only solution is a Fuerher. Very sad. And not true. The record of tyrants and dictatorships is not one of wise and benevolent rule of the enlightened over the unwashed, but of a succession of jackals preying on the helpless.
is, in this case, overly broad. So overly broad, imo, that you're in the same territory inhabited recently by Michelle "Liberalism Is Anti-American" Bachman.
By your definition every law- bills requiring, in the US, anyway, a simple majority vote in Congress (along with a Presidential signature in most cases)to be recognized as law- is an exercise in tyranny. I don't buy it.
Ever hear of 'tyranny of the majority'? It's certainly a common enough phrase, and often used by minorities to complain of inequitable treatment. The Founding Fathers had enough concern about Tyranny of the Majority or Mob Rule to attempt to build in safeguards including the Bill of Rights and an Independent Judiciary.
Other jurisdictions have gone further, recognizing the existence of collective rights as a bulwark against tyranny of the majority, such as the rights of the french in Canada.
That said, it strikes me that there is in many right wingers a fundamentally anti-democratic impulse. They don't like the idea of government by the people, for the people. They don't like it at all. Deep down, they lust for a benevolent dictator who will not be bothered by majority rule but will simply do the right things. The right hates democracy, and they barely conceal it.
As a matter of fact, it's what I refer to when Paulists eschew the incorporation of the Bill of Rights to the states per the 14th Amendment.
Even when a law is passed after no small amount of compromise during the legislative process you'll always have at least a handful of dissenters crying, "Tyranny!" And, perhaps, at times, this dissent is justified (and, per the 1st Amendment, protected). But when the government we elect finds a compelling interest to legislate, it's not, imo, tyranny. There's a compelling interest to protect the health and welfare of the people, imo, even at the cost of the profits of insurance providers.
I can not understand how people really do not see that there will always be people that want what you have. There will always be people who think you are richer than them.
This is a very simple concept. Oh btw, if the Democrats in congress get a filibuster proof congress and the presidency, where will that lead us?
Wow, problems could actually be solved. Decisions made and we can move forward as a country.
By the way, I enjoyed reading the last several comments. I think you both brought out great conversation, encouraging people to look at both sides and find middle ground.
"I can not understand how people really do not see that there will always be people that want what you have. There will always be people who think you are richer than them."
Sure there are John. But so what? That's hardly the operating principle that organizes the world, or we'd all be living in fortified homes and taking potshots at our neighbors. Do you plan to Rob your neighbors, John? There's a bit more to life, and there's a bit more to society than the war of all against all.
As it is, these people aren't even the problem. The problem of the last 30 years has been class warfare of the Rich against everyone else. These are people who think they are richer than you, but they want what you have anyway. These are people whose only desire is for more and more. For them to win, you and everyone else must lose. There's only so much to go around, and they want as much as they can win, buy, take or steal.
"Oh btw, if the Democrats in congress get a filibuster proof congress and the presidency, where will that lead us?"
Well, I'm not optimistic. But given that for thirty years the Republicans have been the pawns of robber barons, I'm hoping that it will lead to at least a slowdown in the war of the Wealthy against the rest of us.
But my point is,
"As it is, these people aren't even the problem. The problem of the last 30 years has been class warfare of the Rich against everyone else. These are people who think they are richer than you, but they want what you have anyway. These are people whose only desire is for more and more. For them to win, you and everyone else must lose. There's only so much to go around, and they want as much as they can win, buy, take or steal."
Do you think the person making 15k a year does not think the person making 50k a year is rich? When I started out, I was making 12k a year, but those people making 30k to 50k a year were rich to me. Defining the word rich here is very tricky I would think along those lines. Proceeding along those lines, When I was making 12k, I wanted that house, and that car that those 50k a year people had. I would think along those same lines the people making 50k would want what the 125k people may have, a bigger house, a nicer car, etc..This is the point I am trying to make, it is not a few, it is a lot that would like the American dream.
If you want a definition of rich:
* Anyone making over 1 million a year in income of any sort - earned or dividends or stock options.
* Anyone with assets of over 5 million.
But I admire your desperate stroke towards relativism.
I am wondering where you found those numbers but here is something for you to ponder
http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/12/define...
http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2008/01/09/a-rich...
As you can see, Rich is very hard to pin down, even the people that you say are "rich" consider themselves not rich.
As a matter of fact, the majority of the time people who make X amount, think double that amount are rich to them.
Let us look in the dictionary for rich,
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rich
There is nothing stating an amount x = rich.
Now back to the blog at hand, if 1 million in your mind is rich, then why does Obama's plan start at 250k? Shouldn't he raise it to 1 million(by your definition of course)?
Or Sam Walton, or J.P.Ghetty. Howard Hughes walked around with kleenex boxes on his feet because he didn't think he could afford shoes. Does Paris Hilton think she's rich?
I picked the numbers fairly arbitrarily, but there's a method to my madness. One can quantify income and put it on a graph.
The people at the far end of that graph are poor. Everyone else on that graph has more money than them.
The people in the middle of that graph are the middle, middle class.
Then on the other side of the coin, you have the well off, the haves, the have mores, and the have a shitload.
Over at the far end, the people who are in the top five percent of income or assets, or the top one per cent, or the top one tenth of a per cent... they're rich. It don't matter how they feel, they're rich.
As for 250,000 a year in income? Nope, that's doing really good. That's being at the far side of the curve. That's making five to ten times an average American family. But not rich. America has been good to these people, even though they're not rich, and I just figure that they should be good to America back and pay their fair share of taxes.
A previous poster on this thread observed that he earned $200,000 a year, but that he had so many tax breaks and deductions, he didn't pay nearly the same taxes that a middle class family did. Do you think that's right? Is that paying a fair share?
I think we've all heard the stories of Hedge Fund managers who make millions and pay fewer taxes than their secretaries. Do you think that's right? I'm asking you, seriously. Is that fair? Maybe better off people should be paying more taxes, instead of fewer taxes than poorer people?
Mate, I think your view of China is probably outdated. China, as you've probably heard, is poised to replace the U.S. as the world's biggest economy.
Of course, they still have problems with oppression, but I don't think they should look to the U.S. as a model, since the States has MORE PRISONERS than China, which has 4 times the population of the U.S.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/04/23/americ...
As for taxes, most advanced countries have a progressive tax system. It's different values, that's all. In the States, people have been brainwashed to believe that ANY government is bad government. Whereas, in most countries, people appreciate the programs they receive and understand the value of paying taxes. As well as the value of having everyone a bit better off, even if it makes it harder for ME to become rich.
No one is saying it's wrong to make money. But certainly, we're all better off if we carry within us the attitude that we're all in this together rather than "fuck them, I've got mine."
Personally, I think it's absolutely wrong that the CEO of Exxon-Mobil can walk away with a $500 million retirement package when simultaneously average Americans have gone from paying $1.40 at the pump to $4 and watched their retirements disappear. The attitude in the states has become this, "Well, it's his money. He earned it." Not true. He earned it by making life hard on a lot of average folks.
Ben Franklins words had NOTHING to do with your idiotic comments! How dare you use Ben Franklin's name, who did more charitable work for the "commongood" he expoused constantly, than the entire current crop of conservatives put together have, to try an make a stupid rightwing bullshit talking point. And by the way you idiot, the people would PAY for insurance in a single payer system. Just like they pay for their social security. God you are one fucking stupid bastard.
I almost wish morons like you would contract a fatal desease and be told with a grin from your private market buddies that "we just cannot cover you at this time," knowing you would then be leaving your family on their own.
[Deleted. Abusive. Civility, please. Thank you. Site Monitor]
He tries to show us that he is intellectual but only shows us that he is the epitomy of the worst of the worst. The minions don't know any better but this asshole should and still spreads his selfish, self-centered, don't touch my pile bullshit.
Plato made his observations thousands of years ago. Yes, Democracy is the last stage in the growth and decay of governments but it is the mentality that this jerk displays for all of us to see that will lead to the eventual downfall of this experiment in democracy. I still believe if we can reign in this putrid example of humaness, maybe, just maybe we can prove Plato wrong.
Has there ever been a compassionate form of government where we truly look out for the welfare of the other? It will never happen if we don't beat down the republican mentality in our case.
This "I've got mine, screw you" is classic libertarian B.S. I once read that a libertarian is a conservative with a bong.
Name calling shows lack of intellect.
your comment of "reign in this putrid example of humanness" this sir, is unacceptable, do you wish to put people who have different ideas other then yours in a camp of some sort?
Actually, I just wanted to correct one of John's misconceptions, and perhaps a misconception which is all too ready to take root.
Democracy is not a doomed stage of political development, it is not fated to fail, it is not the last stage of growth and decay.
The actual historical record is quite different.
Democracy and Democratic forms of government are remarkable for their vitality and persistence. They've proven consistently better at resolving their internal and external problems than just about any other form of government.
Roman Democracy was so effective that it built an Empire. Rome as an Imperial state was a lurching tragedy of incompetent Emperors who eventually pissed it all away.
The democracies of the Greek city states produced one of the most vital and amazing civilizations in history, an age that passed not from internal decay but external conquest by far larger and more powerful adversaries.
In the modern era, Democratic governments are astonishingly enduring. Britain is an 800 year ongoing experiment in increasing liberalization. Representative bodies, a proto-democratic element, were a feature of almost all European states coming out of the middle ages, even Russia had its Duma. French history for the last 250 years has been a series of struggles for democracy and repudiations of tyrannies. American Democracy has endured for over 200 years. Canadian Democracy over a century.
Just about every postwar European state outside the Warsaw pact became a Democracy, and those that weren't either transitioned naturally, as in Spain and Portugal, or quickly returned as in Greece.
Today, Democracies outnumber Tyrannies through Asia, Latin America and Europe. Only in Africa do they have a foothold. And by and large, Democratic governments have so consistently outperformed dictatorships that there's no real comparison.
So what are we to make of this? If Democracy is doomed, why is it such a persistent and deeply rooted form of government, why does it take on such a life of its own, why does it work so well for people.
It might be tempting to attribute the spread of Democracy to the United States, but the truth is that the US has opposed Democracy in many places - in Nicaragua, Phillipines, South Korea, Argentina, Chile, etc. etc. American policy frequently overthrows or attacks Democracies in favour of American interests - Iran under Mossadegh, and most recently Venezuala under Chavez, were the subjects of American backed coup attempts. America is at best an erratic friend.
The truth is that the movement to Democracy comes from the people themselves, from the nations themselves. History, despite Tytler (Hitler) is moving in the other direction.
NoGW you sound like a very angry person, I come to make a reasonable argument to prove a point that neither side has a win button and the only thing you have to spew are name calling and death. Yes, I dare use Ben Franklins words, because he is the one who made the statement.
By your statement, "they would PAY for insurance in a single payer system, Just like they pay for their social security."
You sir, make my point for me, social security comes out of my taxes, what about the ones who don't pay taxes? Would they get the health insurance anyway even if they don't pay into it?
I will not stoop to your level and call you names, because when people start down that road, it shows lack of intelligence.
Well, Ben Franklin is also reported to have said something along the lines of: "Those who choose security over liberty receive neither."
Ben Franklin said a lot of things:
"All would live long, but none would be old."
As for your point on Taxes, John, that's quite interesting. Your thesis seems to be that only those who pay taxes should receive benefits. Is this as correct statement of your view?
What about churches? Churches pay no taxes? Should we exempt them from police protection? Fire protection? Other taxpayer funded programs and services?
How about children? Children pay no taxes. Arguably, a person doesn't begin to pay taxes until they are at least 18. Is public education a waste of money?
How about the elderly? Often elderly people's income declines significantly, they cease to be taxpayers or significant taxpayers. The worst off of the elderly may pay no taxes at all. Do we as a state have a social responsibility to demand that our government force these people to starve in a gutter if there is no family left to care for them?
It strikes me John, that beyond some superficial gloss, your position is hardly thought out, but merely reflexive and visceral. You might want to give it more thought, you might change your conclusions.
As a matter of fact, you missed my point of view.
My point of view is this,I have no problem helping the people who actually need the help. For example, after Hurricane Katrina, a lot of people received FEMA checks. I know of many, many cases where people took those checks and instead of helping themselves and their family, they went buy a new purse, or took a trip, instead of buying food and fixing their home.
When I see blatant abuse of situations like this it gets me rather upset.
With that said, until these programs and programs like them have strict guidelines and even more strict enforcement of abuse, there will always be those that abuse the good intention of the program. These programs will not work unless there is enforcement of abuse and some people realize that these programs are not a way of life, but they are a stepping stone to help you get a better life.
Another example is this, if universal health care passes, how many people will drop their current program to join it if it is at taxpayers expense like social security is? I for one would, even though I can afford my own, why should I pay for both? How many will think along those same lines?
"For example, after Hurricane Katrina, a lot of people received FEMA checks. I know of many, many cases where people took those checks and instead of helping themselves and their family, they went buy a new purse, or took a trip, instead of buying food and fixing their home.
When I see blatant abuse of situations like this it gets me rather upset."
Buying a purse instead of fixing their house? Hmmm. That must have been a very very very expensive purse.
But seriously, how do you know of these 'many, many cases' John. Word of mouth? Sleight of hand? Anecdotes?
How many people received FEMA support? How much FEMA support was provided? What was the range of money provided to individuals and families? What was the median and the mean and the averages?
How much of this was misused? What's the proportion here? Was it 1% abuse? 10%? 50%?
And how do we assess abuse?
Take 'buying a purse' for instance. A woman who loses everything in Katrina, left only with the clothes on her back... she has to look for a job, go for a job interview, she needs new clothes including a purse. Is a purse really an unreasonable purchase? I can't imagine that a purse would be an extraordinary purchase. But it might well be vital.
'Taking a trip.' Katrina scattered whole families across the country. Would using FEMA money to take a trip to reunite the family be an abuse of money? Would taking a trip to see if you can find a job somewhere else and restart somewhere other than New Orleans be an abuse of money? I'm not so sure.
It seems to me that there might be some very superficial and subjective judgements at work. I'm not criticizing you, I'm just saying that a lot of the time, things are more complicated and less cut and dried than we often like to make them out to be.
But let's assume that there is some level of genuine fraud and abuse. Well, yes, that's an outrage and we should be morally offended and do something about that if possible.
But instead of just going reflexively, it strikes me that the way to deal with a problem is to examine it carefully, study it, look at the big picture, and consider ways to solve the problem.
Consider Social Assistance. If actual fraud only amounts to 2% of cases, then we have to consider that 98% of the time the system is working well. Should we let 98% starve in order to punish the naughty 2%?
These are serious questions. In my jurisdiction, we elected a very 'get tough on welfare cheats', very aggressive conservative government. They turned the system down looking for fraud, they conducted all sorts of spot audits, file reviews, posted a tip line for cheaters to be turned in, offered rewards, etc.
You know what they found? Welfare cheating was negligible, maybe 2% of cases. Most of it was penny ante stuff, a single mom made a few extra dollars from babysitting and didn't report it, or a family dragged an abandoned couch home and didn't disclose the new 'asset.' However, and this is the interesting part, eventually we found that the costs of all these new policing, auditing, inspection and get tough policies and procedures far far outweighed any costs savings or benefits recovered. Worse, the social assistance program became slower, more inefficient and delivered poorer service as a result of hyper-micro-management.
Life, as I've said, is a bit more complicated than it appears.
I do not have the exact numbers of all you asked for obviously, but should the 2% as you say run rampant? I think not.
Here is another example for you.
My uncle lives in New Orleans, he had insurance on his house for Katrina. After Katrina he received a check of 3k from his insurance company because he had a 5k dollar deductible. So, they found a total of 8k worth in damage, ok?
Now two people directly across the street who I know personally had about the same amount of damage, but the difference is, they had no insurance. So they filled a claim and received a check of 8 to 10k from the government(our tax money). They in turn took that money and instead of fixing their home(which is was supposed to be used for)one couple purchased a brand new boat and went on a European vacation. Yes the house across the street is still not fixed.
These and many other situations as this need to be fixed before a system I support can be implemented. How does the saying go? the good have to suffer for the bad? Instead of throwing money at a problem, fix the underlying cause first so people are not using government support as a way of life but as a stepping stone.
That any business or undertaking that can claim a 98% success rate has a lot to crow about. I would like a perfect world where we could get to 99%, or 99.9%, but we'll never get to 100%.
Is it worthwhile to burn down your house to kill a mouse? At some point, cost effectiveness enters into the equation. It's not worthwhile to prosecute a single mother who makes an extra twenty dollars a week doing undeclared babysitting. The big cases are few and far between, they get caught and punished. The point is to help those who need help to the maximum effectiveness.
Your example is very nice, but without actually having the larger picture, or a detailed picture, I don't think we can actually say anything of substance. In a way, its a little misleading. You mention three homes - your virtuous uncle, and his two neighbors. But only one of these neighbors in your story actually misused or abused the system, as you describe it.
Are your example representative? Or are they flukes? There was a massive amount of genuine need, does a petty grift really amount to anything? You made no reference to runaway contractor fraud taking place in New Orleans, or the predatory scams and bad behaviour of insurance companies, or the numerous examples of government malfeasance.
I dunno. Personally, if my choice was a FEMA trailer laced with Urea Formaldehyde and getting a boat... well, I might go for that boat. I'd live longer, particularly if another Hurricane came along. Considering how Katrina went, and considering what a near miss we've had this year, perhaps every homeowner in New Orleans should have a boat of some type, just for emergencies.
And there's fishy things here. A boat isn't necessarily the cheapest thing. A European vacation is definitely not cheap. Were they really paying for it with FEMA money? If they had their own money and own savings that they'd been using, would that make a difference? Was it simple recreation to go to Europe, or were they visiting relatives? I dunno.
Your comment that the Good must Suffer for the Bad is very glib and old testament. But I'd argue that it's not good policy. Shall we destroy the entire social assistance system for the 98% who are deserving and needy, in order to pursue the 2% who might not be?
Let me put your proposition to the test.
You are in charge of a group of children. One of these children, you know is a thief who steals food and abuses the system. The only way to stop the theft is to not let any of the children have food.
How many children are you willing to starve to death, to get the one bad one? A hundred?
Ten? Will you starve ten good children to death, for a bad one?
How about five?
Two?
How many children are you prepared to kill?
I am trying to figure out your proposition but more information is needed. I am in charge of a group of children whom I am assuming I am feeding, so why would I have to stop feeding them and why would one of the children steal food if he is already getting the food for free? This is not a valid proposition.
A better proposition is this; you are running a program for welfare.
you are in charge of 50 cases, out of those 50 cases, 10 of them continue to have children that they knowingly cannot afford or support, what do you do? 10 of them are able to work but refuse to do so, what do you do? 10 of them,after visiting their homes you find they live very extravagant for that neighborhood, cell phone, new furniture, even a car that you cannot afford, name brand clothes, but their children are in thrift clothes and are not getting the supervision or guidance they need, what do you do?
Also where do you get your facts that 98% of people actually need the system and 2% abuse it? Local does not translate to nationwide.
My example that I cited about the boat is accurate, I know they used the money for those items because they told me so. The other neighbor purchased a brand new car, my point is, instead of putting the money back into the home(where it was supposed to go) they abused the system. Why not take the money and fix your home, fix the roof, fix the inside, instead of complaining 4 years that you need more help from the government. The priorities are wrong. Yes both homes are still not fixed and they both complain about not having money now.
There was some contractor fraud yes, but where does the personal responsibility come into play? check out the contractor, ask for references, call the references etc..
You're dodging, you're weaving, you're trying to skate away because you don't want to answer the question.
There's nothing complicated: How many innocent children are you prepared to kill, to see that the guilty child also gets his? It's not a complicated question. Just give us a number, how many?
You said that the Good must suffer for the Bad. That was you, right? Well, this is where that line of thinking goes. So let's face up to it.
"A better proposition is this; you are running a program for welfare.
you are in charge of 50 cases, out of those 50 cases, 10 of them continue to have children that they knowingly cannot afford or support, what do you do?"
Force them to get abortions! Sterilize them! Take their children away and sell them! Punish the hell out of them by making the children starve! Were these the right answers? Just curious.
"10 of them are able to work but refuse to do so, what do you do?"
Well, darn them. First being able to work doesn't mean that they actually can. Are there jobs? What's the unemployment rate in town? 5%? 10%? What's the persons skills? It strikes me if they're unemployed brain surgeons and there's a thriving market for brain surgeons, then there's no exuse. If, on the other hand, our welfare recipient is illiterate, undereducated, unskilled, and in a labour market with a surplus of these qualities... not much of a point, is there? There ain't no job.
Or suppose that the welfare recipient is a single mother, abandoned by the husband, three kids that she's got to take care of. Suppose that all she can get is a minimum wage job. Suppose that in order to do that job, she's got to pay for day care. Suppose the cost of day care is more than the money she makes from her job? What would you have her do, John?
Here's a true story, John: There's this couple I knew. They had a car accident, not their fault, they got T-boned. He's a quadriplegic, wheelchair the rest of his life, special needs. She got off okay, able bodied, healthy. They're on welfare. She has to take care of him. At night, every two hours, she has to wake up and turn him over, so he doesn't get bedsores. She has to feed him on an exact schedule, and she has to process the food so he can swallow it. She has to dress him. She has to clean him. She has to wipe his ass three times a day. Friends, parents, relatives help out where they can. His mother bought them a hospital bed. But here's the thing, she's able bodied, she could go out and get a job, minimum wage. Do you think that's an option, John?
"10 of them,after visiting their homes you find they live very extravagant for that neighborhood, cell phone, new furniture, even a car that you cannot afford, name brand clothes, but their children are in thrift clothes and are not getting the supervision or guidance they need, what do you do?"
Force them to get abortions? Sterilize them? Sell their children?
If its a neglect issue, then Child and Family Services, that intrusive nanny state you dislike so much, gets involved. I'm surprised that you seem to be such a fan of the intrusive state.
Cell phones? The last time I was wandering in the mall, I saw a pay as you go cell phone that was going for thirty bucks, with 40 dollars worth of free minutes. Basically, in practical terms, they were paying you ten dollars to take the phone. Cell phones are not a big deal.
New furniture? Well, where'd they get it. Did they find and drag home abandoned furniture from some curb? Value Village or thrift stores? Was it a gift or donation from relatives? Did they win it in a raffle? You don't buy new furniture on welfare money, so was there an undeclared source of income? Is it a matter of someone catching a lucky break, or is it situation of someone with a job or undeclared income source supplementing their welfare and enhancing their lifestyle.
Let me make it easy for you, John. If there's an able bodied person without costs or responsibilities who is employable and likely to be employed, they should be moved off social assistance and get a job.
But it's usually a lot more complicated than that.
I am not dodging or weaving, I am simply stating that your proposition is skewed. Why would one steal food if he is getting it for free? The good suffer for the bad everyday, because there are people who do not need the assistance who are getting it. If the bad ones were to stop receiving it, then there would be more for those who need it.
"Force them to get abortions! Sterilize them! Take their children away and sell them! Punish the hell out of them by making the children starve! Were these the right answers? Just curious."
So the answer is to allow manipulation of the system? This is also a flawed way I believe.
"But here's the thing, she's able bodied, she could go out and get a job, minimum wage. Do you think that's an option, John?"
Do they have a computer? if so, can she type? she could take dictation from home and make extra money instead of leaving the home, can she sew or can she learn too? she can make things to post on ebay or sell locally,(my sister-in law does this and makes a bit of money doing this.) Can she tutor? Can she play an instrument and teach from home? I am sorry for their situation but there are many things she can do to at least make extra income.
In the end to summarize I everything, I think we can at least agree to disagree. How about that?
Simplest possible terms: How many innocent people are you prepared to see dead, in order to make sure you get the guilty one.
Come on, you've got an answer. We both know it.
""Force them to get abortions! Sterilize them! Take their children away and sell them! Punish the hell out of them by making the children starve! Were these the right answers? Just curious."
So the answer is to allow manipulation of the system? This is also a flawed way I believe."
You going to get behind any of my answers? Forced abortion? Sterilisation? Child starvation? They've all been tried. You know, in my old jurisdiction, in the 1930's, welfare agents actually sued poor people for having children - it was later considered shocking and unconscionable.
But if you don't like these answers, what's your answer to someone on welfare having a child. Hmmm? Seems to me, John, that you've got a history of ducking awkward problems. ;)
"Do they have a computer? if so, can she type? she could take dictation from home and make extra money instead of leaving the home, can she sew or can she learn too? she can make things to post on ebay or sell locally,(my sister-in law does this and makes a bit of money doing this.) Can she tutor? Can she play an instrument and teach from home? I am sorry for their situation but there are many things she can do to at least make extra income."
They had one. They had to sell it when they went on welfare. So much for ebay. She's a two finger typist, not very fast, I'm afraid. Does anyone outsource dictation? I don't think so. She doesn't play an instrument. She has a basic high school education. So the options aren't that great.
The real problem with earning extra money is that welfare policies allow a person to only earn about 10% of their welfare allowance without penalty. If you earn 15%, they'll just deduct the excess from your welfare. Because of the deduction policy, you're required to disclose all income and income in kind received. Income in kind includes non-monetary gifts and services, a value is attributed and its put towards your allowable earnings or deductions.
Take the case of that hospital bed the parents bought. It was second hand surplus from renovation, but Welfare originally assessed it at full brand-new price, income in kind, and they were going to suspend their welfare for months until the hypothetical deductions for the value of the hospital bed was paid out. The other alternative was that they could have sold the hospital bed, but welfare would have still kept deducting them for the list amount rather than the sale amount. We actually had to go through quite an appeal process, and get doctors and nurses involved to prove the bed was a medical necessity.
The other charming thing about Welfare is that if you fail to disclose outside income or income in kind, then you're liable to penalty. These penalties can include automatic deductions on a four to one ratio, or just suspension of welfare, depending.
But hey, you got a point. I suppose that in between 24 hours of taking care of him, wiping his ass three times a day, special feedings four times a day, sleeping an hour and a half at a time, she could go out and collect cans, or make knick knacks, and earn a little bit of money... just not too much.
How many cans would you have to collect, or knick knacks you have to make, to cover the cost of caring 24/7/365 for a quadriplegic?
Ok to answer your question, I would not see any children dead, but instead, have more oversight to find out which child is stealing and take that child out of the system for abusing it. Does that answer that question?
People do outsource dictation btw, medical transcription and legal transcription.
I would not take a child away from the mother, but it is also not right for that same mother to be irresponsible. So what do you suggest? Is it responsible to have a child you cannot afford, knowing the system will pay for them? I think not, somewhere, there must be responsibility. Accountability with the individual should be first, classes to teach abstinence, protection, those may help but in the end, it is still the individuals choice to make right or wrong decisions, how do you enforce morality?
We've finally forced you to come out against Dead Children. So even if you could never be sure you'd gotten the right 'bad kid' you wouldn't kill the rest. There's a bit of decency in you, I'm glad to see it.
Both medical transcription and legal transcription are highly specialized fields requiring both special training and certification. It's not something that someone can just start up and do.
I take it that you are also not in favour of forced abortion, mandatory sterilisation, child starvation, or child removal.
How do you feel about forced or mandatory contraception? Come on, surprise me.
I don't see having children as a moral failing or any kind of blasphemy. People have children for all sorts of reasons, including the simple biological fact that's how we're made. If people have children that they're unable to provide for, well, I think its our duty as a society to make sure those kids are looked after.
I suppose that we could sit around and debate ways to punish the mothers.
But that's not my priority.
I'm right, you're wrong. We both know it, you don't like it, but got no way around it and you don't want to admit it.
But I see you're mistake. You've mistaken me for a Liberal, or a Progressive, or a Lefty, or whatever those sheep faced pacifists are calling themselves these days. That's not me.
I'm a guy with common sense and open eyes, and very little tolerance for the stuff that comes from the wrong end of the bull.
"The other neighbor purchased a brand new car,"
What sort of brand new car can you get for $8,000.00?
"Also where do you get your facts that 98% of people actually need the system and 2% abuse it? Local does not translate to nationwide."
Hmmm. Let's take a quick look around:
http://www.centrelink.gov.au/internet/interne...
This site discloses 4,300,000 entitlement reviews. And 3083 convictions for welfare fraud.
So, that's a fraud rate of 1 in every 1,400 reviews. That's about 0.7%, roughly.
I'm sorry, I thought we were basing things on America,after all we are discussing American politics not Australian.
The link is to an Australian internal site, the same percentages do not automatically correlate to the United States.
Yes, you're right. Obviously, Australians are far more moral and upstanding than Americans. Especially poor Australians on welfare. They are, as a whole, far more moral and upright. Plus they're taller, better looking, tanned, athletic and they smell nicer.
Or its possible that the Australian welfare system is generally more incompetent than the American systems. Hmmm. Do you think that's true. There's only about 20 million people in Australia, but they did over 4.3 million case reviews. Let's assume an adult population of about 14 million. Let's assume 10% are on welfare. That means that every Australian on welfare gets his file reviewed 3 times a year, thats a lot of oversight. Of course, that means that in a welfare population of 1.4 million, 3000 convictions would give you a fraud rate of around 2%.
I see the sarcasm, but still, Australia does not equate to America, people are different around the globe, are they not? I do believe the system in America is very flawed with not enough oversight or manpower though.
Well, maybe a little. Where I come from, the saying goes: "It's all fun and games when someone loses an eye." ;)
But it seems to me that Australia's probably pretty comparable to the US of A. After all, it speaks English, european descended, immigrant population, educated, first world industrial, lots of American cultural influence, dollar based economy, federal/state system. It's not like we're talking Ghana or Korea here. I don't know any good reason we couldn't generalize from Australia to America.
But what the hell, I'll google around a bit more and see what I find.
Although it really does seem to me that you're ducking and weaving again.
But let's be serious about this.
Alexander Fraser Tytler (1747 to 1813), was not a historian and made no significant research there. He was a lawyer, that's all. He's most well known for enunciating principles of translation. He certainly didn't undertake any systematic study of world civilisations, and to be frank, the quality of historical knowledge and insight from that time was not impressive. History as a discipline didn't exist, except as a motly colletion of panegyrics, hagiography, myth and propaganda.
The so called "Tytler Cycle" does not date back to Tytler, but seems to emerge around the 1950's, circulated by moral scolds on the right wing.
As historical analysis its not particularly incisive. It's loaded with vague subjective terms referencing back to personal qualities which have little or no bearing on larger social or economic or demographic issues.
One could reasonably argue that cultures follow predictable patterns. But the 'Tytler Cycle' myth merely elevates cranky right wing myth to the level of historical inevitability. It's an alternative to Marx's view of history, also wrongheaded but utopian. It's a nasty, anti-democratic, puritanical argument that can't be divorced from the historical context.
The people originally circulating nonsense this were Nazi's and Neonazi's. They despised Roosevelt, despised the New Deal, despised the very idea of liberal democracy and representative government.
They worshipped personal virtue and elevated the notion of a supreme wise leader who would replace unruly and selfish mass government with an incorruptible, personally virtuous regime that would redeem the nation: Volk and Fuerher.
Tytler? Let's all be honest with each other. The reason Tytler's name is used is because it rhymes. It's an extremists in joke.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Fraser...
I am going to say the same thing someone on this forum has told me. They called me names and said I am an idiot for using Wikipedia. I by no means am calling you any names sir, I am just saying that if things from Wikipedia are not good enough for me to use, then they are not good for anyone else to use.
Thank you,
The state of the discipline of history and historiography in the 17th century is both abyssmal and well documented.
Tytler is a historical person whose career is documented.
The origins of the quotes and the historical context is clear.
None is dependent upon wikipedia.
The problem is, when I use the same argument on this blog at times, I am ridiculed and laughed at.
That right now, you're engaged in an exercise of avoidance.
The quote isn't real. You have no answer for that.
Tytler isn't the author of the quote. He wasn't a historian. He didn't do the study. The history as a discipline in that age was junk. You have no answer for these either.
The quote dates from a social and historical context which makes clear its extremist pseudo-nazi origins. The Tytler/Hitler thing is such a transparently obvious tip of the hat. You're not prepared to wrestle with that.
So what's left? Crying foul?
Ok, so let us say he did not write the quote. Fair enough? It is a quote nonetheless, the question is, is it actually wrong though?
Look at our history in this country, and where we are today. Every year we as a people are more and more reliant upon the government. Little by little the peoples right are being taken away, self responsibility is being taken away.
We have welfare, food stamps, social security, public schools, possibly universal health care, government housing. Now we have government taking a stake in banks and businesses. Where is the government intervention going to stop? The more the government takes over or implements, to quote "help people" in reality, the government gains more power over the citizen until we are completely reliant upon the government from birth till death. This my friend,I fear, will open doors to a government that no one in this country realizes. We are going down a road where eventually there will be no checks and balances
"Ok, so let us say he did not write the quote. Fair enough?"
Well, its not a hypothetical. He didn't right the quote. It's like arguing 'let's say that fish do live in the sea.' But fair enough.
"It is a quote nonetheless, the question is, is it actually wrong though?"
Actually, yes, its thoroughly and completely wrong. I've written an earlier post essentially pointing out that the historical records, and particularly the modern historical record utterly discredits the thesis as set out in Tytler (Hitler).
"Look at our history in this country, and where we are today. Every year we as a people are more and more reliant upon the government. Little by little the peoples right are being taken away, self responsibility is being taken away."
That's passionate, but not very informative. Are you speaking of First Amendment Zones, runaway militarism, the NRA advocating for the right to cop-killer ammunition and assault rifles in the streets, tax giveaways to the wealthy, a total surveillance society, long term prison sentences for nonviolent offenses? Or are you speaking of the standard John Birch nonsense of a nonexistent American utopia being nattered away by liberals?
"We have welfare, food stamps, social security, public schools, possibly universal health care, government housing."
Well John, on the subject of welfare, even the Romans had bread and circuses for the poor. The British and the Colonial Americans had poorhouses. Every society has to take some measures to care for the less well off. We do it better, more comprehensively, and with the goal of actually helping people or their children become productive members of society. What's the alternative - have people starve in ditches?
As for Social Security, again what's the alternative? There are right now a lot of hard working decent Americans who are approaching retirement ages, and one thing they've all got in common is that they've just watched a part of their lifetime retirement earnings vanish in that TWO TRILLION DOLLARS which has evaporated from retirement funds. I think Social Security is a damned good idea, as a cushion of last resort. A lot of these people who worked hard all their lives, paid their own way, raised families, contributed to their neighborhoods are now looking at retirement with their backs against the wall, and Social Security may be all they have.
And 'Public Education'. I got to part company with you there. Public Education is an absolutely vital component of a modern state. We can't function without it, that's the simple fact. The right wing war on Public Education the last thirty years has done nothing but hurt America. That's why American schoolchildren are second rate compared to Japanese schoolchildren, or Canadian, or French, or British, or South Korean, Dutch, Swedish, Russian, Italian, etc. etc. Education is not a luxury for those inclined, or an investment for the wise parent, it is a national priority. Decide for yourself whether you want America to be first rate, or third rate.
"Now we have government taking a stake in banks and businesses."
Which has become necessary because government failed to intervene and regulate banks and businesses. As a result, they ran wild, engaged in speculation and financial misconduct, and crashed the whole thing.
"Where is the government intervention going to stop?"
Seems to me, John, that we're now dealing with the consequences of not enough intervention at the proper time. It's like a kid who refuses to accept an adult telling him not to play with matches, and now that the house is on fire we're upset that the firemen are taking over the house.
"The more the government takes over or implements, to quote "help people" in reality, the government gains more power over the citizen until we are completely reliant upon the government from birth till death."
I remember in Alabama in the Jim Crow days, the government passed laws governing who people could marry, where they could live, what water fountains they could use, which train cars they could ride, where on streetcorners they could sit, who and how they could vote, and what restaurants they could go to.
Even now, there are people who want the government to decide who is entitled to marry whom, who want the government to teach crackpot religious theories in school, who want the government to criminalize certain pictures and movies and send people to jail for that, who want the government to criminalize certain pieces of glassware and send people to jail for owning or selling them, and who want to keep people in jail for longer and longer times. etc. etc.
I'm not a fan of these people. I hope that you aren't either.
I'm all for people taking responsibility for their own lives. But I do believe that as a society, we have an obligation to make sure that everyone gets a fair shake, we have an obligation to invest in our society and that includes investing in people the same way we invest in roads, and we have an obligation to look out for the less fortunate.
If you don't believe in that, then perhaps John, America is not your cup of tea. Perhaps you should spend time examining countries where other beliefs are put into practice.
"we have an obligation to make sure that everyone gets a fair shake"
I think this, is where the problem comes in, what is considered a fair shake? Do we not already have the right to Life,Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness? From stating that you think it is an obligation everyone gets a fair shake, I am under the impression you would like it to read as you have the right and guarantee to life, liberty and happiness.
Is this analogy wrong? I hope it is.
A fair shake? Hmmmm.
Let's start with equality before the law, for white and black, rich and poor, famous and obscure.
Let's go on to say that we're going to insist that every kid gets a decent education, no matter whether white or black, rich or poor, because that's an investment in America.
Let's say that in order to ensure everyone gets a fair shake, the government enforces a set of rules to make sure that people operate fairly. Restaurants can't serve tainted meat, manufacturers can't sell defective products, criminals can't break into houses, your mortgage broker can't change your interest rate without telling you, that a supervisor can't demand his secretary spread her legs or lose her job, things like that.
Let's say that such things as bad luck and misfortune exist, and it can take the form of everything from cancer to hurricanes, and that when things like that happen, we'll stand up like men and do something rather than sit around arguing about whether they were deserving of our help.
Let's say that if we compensate people for a disaster, we don't tell them how to use it. If they use it wisely, good. If they blow it, that's their bad judgement.
Let's say that there will always be poor people and unfortunate people and people at the bottom, and we've got an obligation to look after them.
Let's say that for those people down at the bottom, their children didn't choose the lifestyle, didn't do anything to deserve the place they find themselves, and maybe we should invest a little bit extra into maybe giving them a chance to make something of themselves.
I think that's a fair shake, a level playing field, and respecting the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happyness.
At least we agree on this "Let's start with equality before the law, for white and black, rich and poor, famous and obscure."
"Let's go on to say that we're going to insist that every kid gets a decent education"
What are the standards of decent though? Do they have a choice to home school? Using the word "insist" is very dangerous
"the government enforces a set of rules to make sure that people operate fairly. Restaurants can't serve tainted meat, manufacturers can't sell defective products, criminals can't break into houses, your mortgage broker can't change your interest rate without telling you, that a supervisor can't demand his secretary spread her legs or lose her job, things like that."
Enforce... We already have the FDA, we already have Independent Lab test in the United States anyway, with quality control. If a company buys from overseas, that is when the problem usually comes up.
As for the secretary..wow, umm, sexual harassment case, that is all that I need to say about that.
"Let's say that if we compensate people for a disaster, we don't tell them how to use it. If they use it wisely, good. If they blow it, that's their bad judgment."
Ok, but those same people should not turn around and ask for more assistance if they blow it.
I understand that we see things differently, and that is quite alright, debating is good for the intellect.
Well, if someone wants to homeschool their kids, that's up to them. But frankly, I cut no ice for religious wackjobs. They'd better be prepared to demonstrate their qualification to teach, teach an approved curriculum, and if the kids can't meet mainstream academic standards then I'll call it child abuse. Even so, in many cases they're handicapping the kid by robbing him or her of socialization and lets face it, homeschooling credentials are worth a bucket of spit for getting into any decent post-secondary education.
As for standards of decent education, tell you what. Let's be competitive and insist that our education system produce results that measure up to Japan, or Sweden, or France, or England, or Canada. In other words, be competitive on worldwide terms, and not according to the standards of backwoods Alabama.
As for the FDA and regulatory agencies, we've had a generation of Republicans gnawing the guts out, which is why we get Hamburger disease and E-coli outbreaks and international tainted food shipments. It seems that the Republicans don't believe in regulation, but when they start unravelling them, people start dying. I think we need some more robust basics. The whole financial meltdown we've seen comes about through half assed deregulation.
As for people who blow their settlement money, well, in my experience, people who enter into settlements sign indemnities and releases which close off rights. Now maybe where you come from, people give away free money with no restrictions... in which case, I want to move to wherever you are. But that's how it is where i come from.
The McCain Plan Makes me sick!
Oncologists who reviewed and spoke to McCain's docs follwing the massive excision on the left side of his face concluded that this 2000 tumor may have been a "satellite carcinoma" of one of the other lesions he's had which seriously changes his life expectancy. This cancer removed in 2000 was his 4th episode of the same disease as it's moved around his body.
Invasive Melanoma is a tragic and incurable form of cancer. Actually, it grows on the inside and a patient often is filled with black dots on the inside before it totally takes over. It's one of those "inside out" diseases.
remember the bizarre flash release of his medical records to the media? They are hiding something.
1200 pages for two hours with no phones, cameras or notes.
I remember it well.
very suspicious, indeed.
neither party will communicate that its okay to have socialized medicine. If we are (in truth) the greatest nation on "earth" we should never, I repeat never have to worry about basic health needs.
Everytime I hear or see a community raising money to try and save the life of someone, usually a child, I think "what the hell is wrong with this country?" No one should have to go through that. No one! Even stupid right wing assholes!
Open Blabbermouth and Insert the rest of your political career. Way to go, Michele. You won't be in congress much longer. Americans will dance in the streets to see you put out of your misery, McCarthy's Evil Twin Sister!
http://campaignsilo.firedoglake.com/2008/10/1...
of her crap and I hit the donate button. I wish I could have stomped on her face instead! Oh well, I hope my money helps to do it metaphorically speaking.
Wow! I thought 100,000 was fabulous; now it turns out to officially be in the 175,000 range.
PEOPLE SEE CHANGE ON THE HORIZON AND HAVE FOUND THEIR HOPE!
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Obama_tells_175...
Sorry for the inaccurate info: It was 100,000 in St. Louis and 75,000 in Kansas City.
What is significant is that Missouri is a "red state". Obama's taking McCain's Republican turn right out from under him.
the mizzou state has always been an enigma and to have a turnout like today is inspiring in ways that make me as a human happy
Cernig:
Very true. However, I think Howard Dean put it best when offering something similar to Obama's plan in 2004. If we openly pursue a single payer system in our current political culture, we'll keep losing. Not only are the special interest detractors too organized, rich and powerful, but the hearts and minds of Americans are still stuck in the "government can only make it worse" mode.
So, first we have to get everyone into the system somehow, such as allowing people to buy into the federal plan given to Congressmen. We have short term problems that require relief now -- people who can't get treatment at all, or who fight their insurance all the time -- and in the long run, we can acclimate people to an idea foreign to their ill-informed instincts.
It's starting to happen already. People are starting to see that neo-liberalism (or, in America, conservatism) is a disaster. And they're becoming more receptive to something else.
Have no fear - the kinks, if any, will be ironed out along the way. No plan is perfect when it's only a "conceptualization"; it's in the "implementation phase" that the logistics get worked out. Regardless of the potential imperfections in Obama's plan, it's still far better than McCain's plan.
I trust Obama do implement a plan which will be far better than the millions of people who have nothing at all right now. I don't trust McCain with any plan at this point because he's totally irratic across the board and probably can't even remember tomorrow what his plan says today.
Sadly, when one suffers from senile dementia, the memory is the first thing to go - and that would be the short term memory.
anonymous (not verified),
I largely agree, though I think that "ironing out the kinks" will manifest as incremental steps to a national health care plan.
If you have $10 billion spent on the Iraq war every month as well as elimination of the billions of dollars that the corporate vultures are receiving, you can go a long way toward helping the children of this country have health care.
Parsing hairs about whether we want or do not desire national health care is absurd when we have people dying because they can't afford to see a doctor or receive cancer therapy. If national heath care assures that these poor people and children are taken care of and that's the easiest way to facilitate it, then so be it.
Obama's a very intelligent man and I'm certain he already has qualified individuals lined up to tackle this problem. I trust in Obama's wisdom and leadership to come to the best conclusion based on ALL of the facts.
This clearly is above Mcdumbass's pay grade. Actually remembering what he ate for breakfast is above his pay grade.
It's appalling that americans pay twice the price per prescription (sometimes greater than double) of that of Canadians. These are the exact same pills produced by the same pharmaceuticals - so who's been getting the difference all this time???? There ya go! You betcha and doggone it, those Parmaceutical companies are raping the american public.
Negotiating with Drug companies is a necessity and with the president doing the negotiation in bulk, there's certain to be a reduction in cost.
For openers, where is McCain getting the $5,000 he plans to give each individual? Not money coming from his tax breaks for Wall Street and Big Corporations, that's for sure.
Not coming from $10 billion/per month Iraq War which he intends to continue for 100 years.
So where's this money coming from under McCain's great plan? It's not, folks. It will have to come from entitlement programs; that's right, Medicare and Social Security - the fine print in McCain's health care plan.
Also, I pay $1200/month for Blue Cross for myself right now so that $5,000 from McCain will get me through 4 months - and then I'm taxed on it anyway so it's reduced down to about $2200 by the time I pay his taxes. This is a pisshole in the snow of the average american's health care costs. As he articulated, most plans are in the $12,000 range. My plan is over $14,000 per year.
So, clearly, McCain's plan is shot full of holes and fine print. There's no way he has any income coming into his economic plan to pay each american $5,000. He's a pathological liar.
McCain says his savings will come from cleaning up Medicare, etc. He doesn't even know how many cars he owns, folks - and he's going to streamline Medicare. He doesn't have the first clue. These "savings" are flying around in the stratosphere - a totally nebulous piece of wishful thinking.
Fact is, we have no oversight in any aspect of this administration so how does he plan to save money without any teeth or oversight?
Besides, since he'll be sending us each $5,000 and turning us to the "wolves" (Big Insurance) how much negotiating ability do you think that gives one individual negiating for himself to find his own plan?
Guess again....Big Pharma will give us the hose. Just like they've given us the screws on homeowner insurance, car insurance and will continue (why would they not?) under McCain's health care plan.
And don't worry. It will never go up. But the cost of health insurance will, every year.
I was working in Canada a couple of months back and forgot to bring enough of this prescription nose spray I use for my allergies, and to get it refilled in Canada, my price was HALF OF MY COPAY here in the states. The Canadian price to me, as an American, was $25 CDN and I pay $50 USD as a copay.
It is TOTAL bullshit.
MsJoanne,
Yep. It's crazy.
I have some serious health problems. I have to use injections once a week. Without them, I really wouldn't be able to move around. Naturally, I am very grateful that the medication exists.
But in our insane system, where government will foot the bill for a lot of research and development, then pass on the patent, and thus the profits, to a protected-from-competition corporation, to dispense through a broken health insurance system, each of the friggen pre-filled syringes costs more than $500! EACH ONE! It's close to $2,500 per month just to fill a prescription.
I'll spare you the bureaucratic hoops through which I jump to afford them.
"..hearts and minds of Americans are still stuck in the "government can only make it worse" mode."
Those "Americans" who think like that are by and large the right wing wasp minority. The 20%ers that still support Bush mainly. Most of real America is in the government can help mode and this why Obama will win.
Voter suppression under the leadership of Joe Deters, Ohio needs immediate investigation. Pass this information on to people in Ohio and law enforcement. People are contacting the Obama campaign to bring charges against this criminal, Joe Deters.
http://www.citybeat.com/cincinnati/article-15...
Was there any discussion of the incredible markups in medicines, equipment and doctors fees that are also part of the problem?
That isn't the sole problem but it is part of the overall problem.
It's hard to get the NJM to admit it ever has a conflict of interest.
You mean McCain's plan is designed to benefit the corporate health care mafia, instead of the average citizen of these United States?
I thought McCain always put "Country First".
I'm shocked! I thought he was a "Maverick" and a "reformer"... Wow.
McCain's slogan is actually Country Club First.
With all the morbidly obese people
from Big Corn and what I call the 'Obesity Lobby', we will be up to our knees with diabetics and heart disease patients. Good time to gut a broken system, eh, Maverick?
and we all HATE those private health plans and HMO's. Even doctors curse them out loud on the hospital floor and their offices. I mean, yes, health care is not a finite resource and it does need to be rationed, but on medical grounds, not on momentary ones. We should not, and cannot, perform CT scans and MRIs on every patient, but patients do deserve access to primary care, the most cost-effective medications, and a referral to a specialist when appropriate, along with access to mental health and dental services. This alone will improve the health outcome of a nation immensely.
Obama's plan is not perfect, but damn it, it is a hell of a lot better than what this old coot wants to implement. Dr. Blumenthal, who is highly respected among health professionals and medical students, does not even mention that McCain will most likely take out Social Security as it is!
How hypocritical of McCain - he has had government-sponsored health care all of his life, yet it is not good enough for us. If you have the $$$ to buy a health care plan of your choice, fantastic, but lets have a decent level of health care for everyone and go from there.
And if I could vote on the presidential election (folks from Puerto Rico cannot vote for president), well, lets just say this author is "biased" for Obama.
McCain’s Health Insurance Plan Has ‘Air Quotes’
http://satiricalpolitical.com/?p=4059
We are mostly liberals who like the idea of universal healthcare. We think it should be a "right". This kind of talk is easily batted away as "socialism".
I think it could be easier to convince the majority of Americans to be for universal healthcare if we talk about it as a "market failure" instead of a "right".
When there is a failure of the market the government often steps in and provides the service or gives a monopoly to some entity so they can provide the service. Think garbage collection, public utilities, cable tv.
When we have millions of Americans without insurance, millions more paying through the nose for insurance and still going bankrupt when they get sick, companies on the verge of bankruptcy for doing the right thing for their workers; we have a market failure. The whole country needs care and there needs to be a system devised so that those of us who are paying for insurance are not paying the back-door tax for those of the population who aren't.
We have hospitals in New Orleans on the verge of bankruptcy after Katrina. They are on the verge of bankruptcy because they are having to treat the large population of uninsured in New Orleans for free in the emergency rooms. Why are the so burdened all of the sudden? The state refuses to reopen the free hospital (Charity) that was run by the state before the storm. Why? Probably ideological because the feds and Republican governor are against free healthcare.
So how does this affect me? I am an average citizen with employer paid healthcare. All of the hospitals I can go to for care are in trouble and could go bankrupt. Where will I go for care if I need it when they are gone? How many of the doctors who work there will leave town because they can't perform operations anymore? You can see how the downward spiral goes.
What is that saying "Beware of the law of unintended consequences"?
Market failures can be addressed in a number of ways. Lots of different plans can affect this but I think this is a much more sensible way to talk about it as people will begin to realize this is not some socialist plot, but a way for us to all get what we need out of the healthcare system in America.
The Cold War has been the biggest boon to the powerful corporate interests in America. It's brainwashed Americans into believing that any program that is remotely government controlled is considered Socialist, Marxist or Communist.
Frankly, I don't see anything wrong with social programs. Look at the most successful countries in the world, France, Japan, Germany, they all have strong social programs. And these programs, including public education, have served America well over the years.
Of course, there has to be a balance. But I will take government bureaucracy any day over corporate greed. The government can waste your money, but sooner or later, they'll get caught. Corporations can take more and more of your money, and they'll never be held accountable. As we've seen in recent weeks.
Someone should publicly slap mccains mother! She had the chance to drown him and didn't do it. He's so amoral it's beyond words.
Even if McCain wins-he will be up against a democratic majority in both houses of congress. He will not be able to get anything thru congress. Of course, congress will have to beat his veto on anything progressives want. It is going to be very hard to get anything done if he does get the prez.
Was there any discussion of the incredible markups in medicines, equipment and doctors fees that are also part of the problem?
Of course not. Then the whole "health care" scheme-house of cards, insurance and all would come crumbling down.
I'm going to bed.
Goodnight
Americans are afraid to properly socialize medicine because it would somehow infringe on their rights. The argument that government shouldn't interfere in healthcare decisions between doctor and patient has great weight in America without regard to the fact that the American alternative is to surrender that healthcare decisionmaking to insurance companies, companies whose interest is not in the health of the patient but the health of their own balance sheets, companies whose own best interests are represented not in the delivery of health services but in the denial of health services. Of course, should the health of insurance company balance sheets ever become imperiled, the government will step in to bail everyone out... everyone except the poor stupid bastards who foot the bill with their tax dollars.
What I can't understand is how socialist became such an evil word and concept. We live in a society, we try to be social (so as not to rip each other's heads off), and have social classes. So why is it when someone tries to help a large number of people it is instantly called a socialist move and seen as automatically evil!?
People need help with their medical bills and healthcare needs and John McCain is proposing to tie an anchor around their necks! Yet any other proposal that calls for something other than a free market solution is derided as "socialism"! Why do we (the american people) allow this?!
The best of both worlds would be where many health problems are not covered at all, and the few that are have high co-payments.
The best of both worlds would be where many health problems are not covered at all, and the few that are have high co-payments.
McCain is a 3-time cancer survivor, who wouldn't qualify for his own plan.
Shiver at the thought of having this health plan because it's going to put a lot of people out in the cold. I work at the front desk of a clinic. Last week I waited on a young man, early 20's who broke his leg. There was a cast put on all the way up to the middle of his thigh. He was going to be treated for the break for six months. NO INSURANCE. What happens to that middle class family he comes from? McCain doesn't give a flying f*ck about that family because he has NO CLUE about anything economic. He's never had to worry about money.
is a hate monger
Why would I want universal health care. It is a fiscal impossibility because the system is too expensive, which results in reduced care. In other words, governments are forced to ration their coverage. Take a look at this ex-Canadian radiologist's behind-the-scenes look at how the system really operates. Nothing like buying used equipment from the US and telling your citizens it's an upgrade.
http://www.americanexperiment.org/uploaded/fi...
A real solution would be to change the tax code so that corporations aren't the main providers of health care.
Login or Register to post comments.