If 100 million people want to join the Public Option, what's the problem?
By John Amato Thursday Jun 11, 2009 5:45amYou can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (1002)
PLAYS: (3849)
Sen. Grassley, the Mad Twitterer, was on with Andrea Mitchell and she asked him about the public option. She didn't bring up his tweets, unfortunately. He said that he was against the public option because a think tank study told him around a hundred and nineteen million people would opt out of private health insurance and join it.
So WTF is wrong with that? What does that say about the health care in America? If 80% of the people are satisfied with the insurance they have then why would they leave it for a public option? Simple questions need simple answers, but with people like Grassley as a Senator, you know this country is in trouble.
Please donate to C&L's 2009 funder. We've received over 100 so far...
Login or Register to post comments.
What's wrong with 119,000,000 opting for a public health care plan?
My god, man - People would get all healthy and everything and cut health care costs, why, rich pharmaceutical companies and HMO executives would make less money. You can't have that now. They wouldn't be able to buy their kids G.I. Joe with the Kung Fu grip.
What about the children?
Why does Senator Grassle hate Americans so much?
Foist?
it's the he JUST looooves the cash he gets from the insurance companies.
...with a little from column A and a little from column B, lNm.
I'd say you are correct.
and the bills bury you like an avalanche.
They have successfully killed any chance that the current attempt to fix healthcare will not even consider single-payer. That option was surrendered without a fight.
Without at least a major public outcry? What's wrong with us?
It's sad that the MIC causes us to spend billions on weapons systems and bases that even the military doesn't want. Now we see that a similar thing going on in the healthcare arena. We end up spending a huge amount of our resources on things that benefit politicians and corporations at the expense of average citizens. So much for "providing for the general welfare".
..wouldn't mind giving up his public option coverage and would join the ranks of the people he is willing to screw, you know, just to show solidarity with them.
Friggin' slimebag.
Actually, Congress ought to create the public option and then scrap the existing federal healthcare options for all branches of the federal government (save perhaps the military?). This has lots of benefits:
o Provide a decent pool of users having a normal cross-section of the population (i.e., not just those desperate to get coverage).
o Show faith in this option so that the general population will have confidence in joining it.
o Ensure that the Congress and Executive branch have a vested interest in making it a viable option.
a few nights ago.
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2009/060509.html
I'm sure their not asking the children. Our population is over 300 million. It semms like a landslide if it were put to a vote.
Exactly. The public overwhelmingly supports this. And I would guess that includes Grassly's constituents. All those insurance co. contributions aren't going to help him if he screws over his base.
The argument Grassley is making is a legitimate one in economics. It has to do with monopolies, and what happens to prices under monopolies. If 100 million people leave private insurance carriers of all shapes and sizes, to join a megalithic national program of health insurance, then there will be fewer insurance carriers competing with that megalithic national program -- some will simply go out of business, and such.
In order to combat this fact, one needs to do so with facts and statistics. You can't just make light of the economic argument being made by Grassley.
He said 80% of Americans are happy with their insurance. Do you actually believe that bullshit?
If 119 million would switch 80% can't be happy.
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2009/060509.html
He's just throwing numbers out there.
To call out conservatives on their lies. And they all wring their hands and wonder why people are abandoning the traditional media in droves. It's exactly like what's going on the Republican party. People say "we don't like you and this is why", and their response inevitably is, "You don't know what you're talking about because we don't believe you are even capable of subjective thought so we're going to do more of the same and reserve the option of whining some more if that doesn't work"
Actually the Republican response so far has been a very Cheneyesque "Go fuck yourselves. Public option? We don't need no stinkin' public option!"
Yeah right.
To find out exactly WHAT "Think Tank" (Rand?) did the study and where the report is. It should be made public pronto.
No, I suspect he is either relying on a biased sample poll, or making the figure up out of thin air.
What strikes me as odd here is that Republicans generally are pro-Business, and anti-Populist if it interferes with their pro-Business philosophies. Yet here we have a Republican trying to make a populist appeal. It doesn't pass the sniff test.
A pro-Business Republican SHOULD be making the argument that under our current model in the USA, USA-made widgets and services have a disadvantage in the marketplace if they're made by a company which provides health care benefits to their employees. How are our widgets supposed to compete with widgets made in other countries where their employees are not receiving employer-based health care? The obvious answer is that they can't, and that we need to move to a single-payer model, and let our businesses compete without having to price health-care costs into the costs of their US-made widgets.
...concern troll.
on Hardball the other day, talking about how the public option would limit the consumers choice...
Choice?
What CHOICE do I have?
I can't FUCKING AFFORD private health insurance you fuckin fascist SCUMBAG!
My taxes pay for YOUR goddamn healthcare you FUCK!
This shit makes me so fuckin crazy angry!
Fuck ALL you goddamn republican assholes!
Epinnoia is right. Grassley is arguing the opposite of what a "free-market" Republican *should* argue if he/she really is for open competition in the market. Insurance costs are driving American companies out of business (and workers into bankruptcy when they have medical claims that are denied--if they have insurance at all). What Grassley is really saying is that BIG INSURANCE will be hurt by any kind of public option (which is also bullshit on its face--BIG INSURANCE will do just fine against a public option that is deliberately set up to suck--and it will be. Only single payer will work).
Now, as for choice, no one is calling these asshats out on the faulty reasoning. You want more choice? You MUST have the public option. It introduces more choice into the scenario. But Republicans are relying on the unquestioning media to let them spew their bullshit and an undereducated viewership to consume whatever misinformation they're given.
This must stop! Somehow, the Progressives in Congress, though they seem to be few, have to find a way to rebut this faulty reasoning and turn the discussion back to the workers who are being broken by our insurance/medical/pharmaceutical nightmare.
full agree.
Epinnoia
Your logic is only "legitimate" if there was true open market competition in the health care insurance industry... but there is not.
The insurance companies have the deck all stacked in their favor. The number one reason people WITH health insurance go bankrupt is because their health "provider" refused coverage.
Yes I do make light of Grassley "argument" since he's taken over $1,000,000 from the insurance companies in
bribescampaign contributions... ya think maybe that's the reason the insurance companies are holding all the cards? Having one of the worst health care insurance programs in the industrial world may also put an exclamation point on Grassley"s illegitimate "argument"!I think that's what Epinnoia is saying.
In the absence of laws against it, free market in the healthcare business is going to come up with a price structure where the ones who need or are likely to need the most healthcare are going to be charged exorbitantly—to the point of being priced out of healthcare. While healthy life-styles have some bearing on a person's healthcare utilization, a lot of it has to do with your genetics and just plain luck (e.g., accidents). Cost-sharing is the only way to guarantee afforadable healthcare to all.
..to put those bastards out of business for good. The issue isn't whether they can compete or not, it's that they have forfeited, through their predation, all rights to participate in the process. They deserve no place at all at the table. Put up a big monlithic structure. Let them wither on the vine. If people prefer private insurance, let them pay for it out of their own personal funds with no help from the taxpayers.
There are some things that are natural monopolies of government: armed forces, police, a judiciary, public infrastructure and so on where it is ludicrous to consider or allow competition with or from the private sector. Healthcare should be included in that exclusive monopoly. Grassley's premise is defective, in that he thinks the private sector has any natural right to even be involved with it in the first place.
As I've said before, borrowing from a line JFK made about the C.I.A., "The for-profit private "health" insurance corporations should be torn into a thousand pieces and scattered to the wind!"
but I'll say it again...
You're a damn genius.
The "fact" is private insurance companies are making astronomical profits and screwing the public. Don't tell me that "economically" his argument makes sense; "economically" for me AND the rest of the public, the public option makes much MORE sense.
I don't give a shit if some of these companies go under - they certainly didn't care if I could pay MY bills, did they?
But this is a different sort of monopoly in that the owners of the monopoly are we the people. Normally, customers of a monopoly have to just take what the monopoly dishes out. We on the other hand can send the "board of directors" or the CEO packing at the next election. We also benefit from the buying power of the monopoly. Utilities are frequently closely-regulated monopolies where the government itself isn't providing the service (e.g., power, water, sewer, etc.); for some things there isn't a way to provide sufficient competition for a real free-market.
With a public option you'd have lots and lots of nurses and doctors and average lay people wanting to get involved to work within that system to make it the best in the world. Finally medical professionals would have the time to care for patients and not have to spend needless hours on nonsensical paperwork.
I know I would slink out of my retirement and work full-time on a public health care system with no profit incentive.
I also believe that a public system would eventually be followed by publicly funded programs for new nurses and doctors, which are desperately needed in this country.
The American People could help make the system work by volunteering maybe a few hours once a month at the local hospital/clinic, if they were needed.
In a sense, we would all own an interest in a new system that would be serving us all. That's something I would love to be involved in.
"All for one and one for all," sounds nice for a change instead of, "Screw you. I've got mine."
You hold yourself out as some expert in economics, yet the basic logic of all this just zooms over your big head. We do not want the insurance companies running health care in this country any longer. Get it now, genius? Or are you just a troll for the opposition?
You can pretend that economic forces don't drive the medical field, but you'd just be pretending...
The insurance industry skims 35% of the top of our health care bill. At approx. $10,000 apiece per year for coverage that means $350 billion per year will not be removed from the middle class and transfered to the Elite. Get your priorities straight. The class war is still on and it is not between the rich and the poor. It is between the rich and the middle class.
Yes, I agree. If you have facts that say that 35% of our health care costs are going to the profit margins of large insurance industries, then you can argue that the middle-man is making too much money and killing the industry. If the federal government can create a program that will, for example, shave that 35% down to something near 10% or such, then you can tell John and Jane Doe that they would effectively be paying 25% (35% - 10%) less in health care under then national program.
You're still left with the problems associated with megalithic monopolies, however. If such a federal program were as largely successful as expected, then you'd be left with an effective monopoly, and you've just removed competition from the equation. And without competition, according to Econ 101 principles, what generally happens to prices?
Monopolies are only a problem if they're in it for profit, then they have the capability of jacking up prices whenever they want without regard for the economic realities of it's consumers.
For a non-profit government insurance program there are incentives to keep costs *down* since the money to pay for it is coming from a finite resource - the taxpayers. Care would need to be taken to prevent bureaucratic empire building but that could easily be maintained with tight budget controls.
Public healthcare has no incentive to raise rates compared with for-profit insurance companies who need earnings growth to keep those bonusii flowing.
If only the American Health Insurance business worked that way – that would be great: more competition lowering prices, a greater number of options, and good/affordable health care. This was the basic argument against HillaryCare so many years ago. The Insurance Cos promised to increase coverage, reduce prices, and provide better service.
It didn’t happen. Prices went up, coverage went down, people lost their insurance. Now the Insurance industry is saying “This time we REALLY mean it!” Non-sense - The system is broken.
of the equation.
The fact that some of you can only articulate health care concerns in terms of "price" and "profits" tells us how much this society has devolved.
We're talking about people's lives, healthcare, and well being. Do they teach about that in Econ 101? Maybe we should stop using a pseudo science like economics dictate the workings of a real science like medicine. That would be a good start, eh?
You are using the word "monopoly" to bias your argument. You are trying to scare people. Some of us have your number.
You are right about the class warfare.
However, there is no middle class anymore... If you think you are middle class -- you are most likely delusional or poor or both.
The latter:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztBrnrn4Auk
Problem is, the middle class is the new poor.
Conservatives want the government creating jobs by protecting obsolete economic sectors.
unemployment offices and the forthcoming soup kitchens.
You might as well ask her to interview Alan Greenspan who can do absolutley no wrong in her eyes. That's the problem with today's traditional media. They all have a vested interest in covering their own mistakes, covering for those they are involved with and maintaining the status quo. The Village is a stinking cess pool of nepotism
She's married to Greenspan. A tough interview might make for a frosty bedtime.
That said, she's not married to Grassley who proves once again that Republicans are whoring for big business. And Mitchell is too slow on her feet to ask him what's wrong with Americans being offered another choice and then exercising that option.
Hence the nepotism remark
Where anyone spouting in the media would have to disclose their personal financial interest.
For interest, Andrea would explain how rich she has become at our expense while excusing everything hubby has done to destroy the economy.
And Liz Cheney would have to ecplain how much she and her hubby have profited off of wars they advocate but will not volunteer to fight. And what she would lose if her inheritance were confiscated if daddy were indicted for the war crimes he committed.
In fact, it should go much further than that. Any personal ties to the political establishment should disqualify a person from work in the news media. They can work in drama and fiction but not as reporters or editors of news or as pundits. There are really good reasons most private companies avoid nepotism but when the supposed independent media is, in fact, very dependent on the policy makers, where is objectivity? Absent, that's where.
Shouldn't that be covering-up their own mistakes?
In journalistic parlance, covering means to actually have a report on their own mistakes.
Gee I don't know, could it be that the media outlets are owned and operated by old, extremely wealthy, white guys? Just like the repugnacan party.
How can we expect anything from them except toeing the company line? With apologies to Johnny Cash, "Because you're mine, you better walk the line."
Always interesting how those with publicly provided Solid Gold Plated Entitlements such as Health Care and Indexed Pensions are willing to watch everyone else suffer...
"...The United States of 'I Got Mine'"
Term limits anyone?
How about IQ tests before you run for the US House or Senate. Over 75 and you can run. That would eliminate most of the current members seeking re-election.
term limits are the simplest solution ... 2 or 3 terms and out ya go ...would solve lots of problems.
An IQ test with a limit of 75 would only mean that the country would still be run by only 1%-2% or the population ;-)
(ducks and runs...)
That's like 15 points below the low average range and barely considered competent. I've always said that people with two digit I.Q.s have no business running for office.
for most US IQ test...
I was under the impression that the vast majority of people fall somewhere between 90 and 110.
!
with this: If we limit terms, say one 6 year term for president, how would we handle the race to keep the same party in power? Because that surely would be a concern for whichever party is in the WH at any given time, right?
How would they present a "horse race" to the public every 2 years?
A nail has a head on it.
Does this dipshit even listen to what comes out of his stupid mouth. He sounds like Yogi Berra (except not 1/100th as bright at Yogi), when Yogi said about a restaurant, 'No body goes there any more, it's always too crowded.'
That the "nail" remark was lifted directly from the current trailer of a television drama series? It's a cop show I think and some guy is telling a woman, possibly the title character, "When you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail". Grassley must have seen it, liked it and lifted it. It's bad when you have to lift attack lines from a television series trailer.
Hmmm, the word "screw" might be more accurate here.
Well said...
DING DING DING!! We have a winner....
And you're thinking of the ad for "The Closer."
Grassley says most Americans would switch to a public health care system, then says most Americans want to keep the insurance they have. Can't have it both ways.
He's putting the Frank Luntz spin on facts.
why is he accepting the public option Congresspeople gave themselves?
And why is a free market advocate suggesting that government power be used to protect private corporations?
are paying into a private plan for them. It costs them nothing.
Has there been any coverage in the US of the Medical Isotope shortage for diagnostic testing?
could get real ugly real fast ...
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=r...
So they are are terrified of change and of course, they believe their fat paychecks to be threatened. I've known brilliant doctors who were just absolutely ate up with the neocon thought process. Science denying scientists and knee jerk reactionaries permeate the field. It reminds me of the film industry and their opposition to VCRs. They fought tooth and nail and went all the way to the Supreme Court, trying to ban those devices and movie rentals. Now they are making more money than ever. Consider how hard they fought to maintain the status quo and then consider they are mostly liberal. This is going to be a tough fight indeed.
what they're not saying is how lower costs will put our economy on the road to recovery. More money in the pockets of the consumer will help the economy to grow. I'm still trying to figure out how that can hurt. I swear that they have tunnel vision and can only see what's in front of their faces. Save those poor insurance companies that have been ripping us off for decades.
whats in front of their faces is MILLIONS of $$$ from the largest lobby in the country.
Plain and simple.
The ultra rich, including Greenspan, Grassley and all of the others, just spent the last eight years accumulating the nation's wealth to a point where the disparity between the rich and poor is the largest in this nation's history. They're not about to give that up without a fight.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mn4daYJzyls
The law requires taxes to be paid. The government takes them out of your paycheck before you see any of your money. If you have more money in your paycheck because you have government financed health care, the insurance companies are out of business. Then they cannot bribe any politicians. Because politicians want bribes from the insurance companies and any one else who will pay them for their influence, they would have to advocate higher taxes so that the level of their overall income remains the same. Raising taxes is against stated GOP policy. That is their problem in a nut shell. If they can come up with a plan to raise taxes on the lower and middle classes, but not for the wealthy, they would not care about the insurance industry, either. It is the "United States of I Got Mine."
that no matter how old and wrinkly you get, as long as prostitution pays you just keep whoring yourself out.
... is someone from the Administration - very familiar with the proposed system - very pro single-payer - to go on TV every day, at least every other day, and explain what it is.
Repugs have thrown so much garbage out there, telling people that the government would decide what doctors they could see, that the government would run hospitals, etc.
Present the facts about the cost to individuals who are working, to the companies who provide healthcare and to those who need assistance.
Also present a visual tree (graph) showing where the current insurance dollars are going - now and under single-payer. They should stress that insurance is not there to help people who are in need of healthcare, it is there to make investors rich. (This clown on CNBC said back in April - I have the clip but not his name - that 'what we're forgetting is the only reason why anyone in corporate America is making anything was to earn profits, profits are the point, profits are not evil. President Obama thinks they might be'.
This whole thing needs to be debunked and explained in detail, for the average American to understand - that his $18,000/yr premiums will shrink substantially to a much lesser tax on his earnings, or those of his employer allowing the employer to lower prices on his products or services.
Yes, I wish they would use these same arguments to favor single-payer.
“I don’t want some bureaucrat to dictate my health coverage” – that’s exactly right! I don’t want some kid in a suit at my insurance company to determine what procedure my doctor should and should not do.
“I want a choice in my insurance coverage” – that’s exactly right! I want to be able to choose to HAVE insurance coverage that I can afford.
“Competition is good for the industry” – that’s exactly right! Now give me the single payer option to compete with the monopolies.
All good sound arguments. Just use them correctly.
for politicians and the media.
for health care. They will not be the providers under single pay.
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summar...
Raised: $3,774,608
Spent: $2,655,875
Cash on Hand: $3,157,669
Debts: $13,216
Last Report: Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Wow.
Theres a man for the little guy
the right and special interests don't want a public option healthCare plan to work. they tell us how terrible
it will be with bureacrats and at the same time they tell us many will join. it will only work if many join.
this is NO longer an option but reports/studies indicate cost will continue to rise and more people will
become UNinsured as they lose/can't afford their healthCare plan. this is becoming more of a NECessity.
an economic NECessity. CHINA the up and coming major economic power is going to UNiversal healthCare. you tell me if corporations will continue to outsource as long as foreign countries pay/subsidize medical care. CHECK out this quick read graph.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/natio...
Grassley had said. I don't even think it occurred to him that what he had inferred was that 119 million were not satisfied with their health insurance, without provinding any solution. Did Andrea Mitchell not call him on that? I have a finger to show her if she didn't.
China plans universal health care
By Edward Wong
Published: Thursday, January 22, 2009
BEIJING — China announced that it intended to spend $123 billion by 2011 to establish universal health care for the country's 1.3 billion people.
The plan was passed Wednesday at a session of the State Council, the Chinese cabinet. Prime Minister Wen Jiabao presided.
Xinhua, the state news agency, said the authorities would "take measures within three years to provide basic medical security to all Chinese in urban and rural areas, improve the quality of medical services and make medical services more accessible and affordable for ordinary people."
Providing universal health care is seen by some economists as a way to stimulate domestic spending during the current economic downturn. The Chinese have a high savings rate, and one of the reasons usually cited is their concern about possible medical expenses.
Bai Zhongen, chairman of the economics department at Tsinghua University's School of Economics and Management in Beijing, said that establishing universal health care with government-financed insurance would increase general consumer spending. He said the school did a survey in 2007 about the effect of rural health insurance on consumer behavior and "found that in government-sponsored health insurance areas, people are spending more."
The government already gives many people a small subsidy to help pay for health care, but more government financing for individual health care would strengthen the economy, Bai said.
Xinhua reported that the plan approved Wednesday would aim to provide some form of medical insurance for 90 percent of the population by 2011. Each person covered by the system would receive an annual subsidy of 120 yuan, or more than $17, starting in 2010. Medicine would also be covered by the insurance, and the government would begin a system of producing and distributing necessary drugs this year.
The plan also aims to improve health centers in rural and remote areas as well as equalize health services between urban and rural areas, Xinhua reported. Furthermore, the government would begin this year to reform the operations of public hospitals.
"Growing public criticism of soaring medical fees, a lack of access to affordable medical services, poor doctor-patient relationship and low medical insurance coverage compelled the government to launch the new round of reforms," Xinhua reported.
There'll be the next argument against single payer.
fucking asshole.
Finest kind.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090611/ap_on_he_...
they fix it for the rest of us. This
isn't fair for us to foot the bill for
them when they can't return the favor.
How much coverage from us do they have???
If they have to pay for their own coverage,
is it at a discounted rate, how does it compare
with the rest of us???
if the salaries were commensurate with that of the average working person in this country, and no "lobbying" of any kind was legal? And office holders had to pay for their own health insurance? And the only way to finance campaigns would be from the donations taxpayers made on their 1040's? Then, we wouldn't need term limits. Only those people interested in real public service would be in office.
Here is Republican logic at it's finest.
Grassley says he is a worried that most American's will opt out, invariably because they want more affordable and better health care, and in the next sentence he says most Americans want to keep their current health care and the public option will raise the cost. He dickhead, why are so many Americans going to opt out???????
Curious how hard Mrs. Greenspan questioned his logic and pandering.
119M people is not the whole story. more of the un-insured would have health care as well. people with insurance are subsidizing these people because hospitals and doctors have to inflate the fees they charge to paying customers and insurance companies to cover the losses they incur from the un-insured. With the public option the people choosing to remain with for profit insurance should see their rates go down - oh wait - I forgot - the insurance companies won't give that money back!! They will want to keep the same abount of profit on a smaller group of people so I guess he is right - their rates will go up!!!!!
if the excess profits were in the hands of the consumer, how that could expand the ecconomy. Chamber of Commerce should be all for it.
x
In an op/ed piece today (rather short on details), Republican Sen. Gregg broached the subject of "unncessary tests and procedures"..." And physicians are paid more when they order more tests, procedures and office visits, whether you need them or not. (...) We have the information and ability to change how we pay for health care; we just need to begin implementing the policies to do it, such as informing providers and the public of their performance compared to other providers in their locality and around the country. Payment incentives can also be instituted to improve care by encouraging physicians to coordinate care for patients, thereby eliminating unnecessary procedures and tests. Efforts such as these will improve quality and reduce costs." Given the Frank Luntz Talking Points Marathon from Republicans, how do you think they'd have responded if this were said or written by a Democrat? "It's going to ration your health care....destroy the doctor-patient relationship....lead to more government take-over..." blah, blah, blah.
tests? Do they take kick-backs from the labs that actually do the tests? How does this work. I am not being snarky, I really do not see how this would be worth any one's time. Is the phrase "unnecessary test" code for one that came back negative? I seriously need some input on this concept.
Okay, I am being snarky now. Sen. Gregg, not everyone has the same weasel mentality you apparently are possessed with.
he says all those people are happy with their insurance! ROFLMAO!! People who have insurance don't have a choice. they take it whether they are happy with the insurance or not (something is better than nothing). If 119M leave for profit insurance then they obviously think public health care is better than for profit health care.
I wonder how that poll question was asked? I suspect it's more like most people with insurance are happy to HAVE insurance, not that they're happy WITH it.
.
The lizards are on the move folks.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/11/us/politics...
that there would be cost reductions - including excess charging by some (not all) MDs. Right now, some MDs can be choosy enough to not except Medicare/Medicaid patients but with a public option, they wouldn't be able to turn away so many patients and would be forced to charge "fair and reasonable" prices.
One more reason the public option ain't gonna fly.
Those same doctors that are bought and paid for by Big Pharma, who is so far, getting very little criticism about its participation in trying to deny the people of this country what they want--single payer insurance. Big Pharma pays for research that always says whatever crap (sorry to use a term of art) they are trying to sell (see ads for "Low T") is good while avoiding clinical trials, going straight for releasing it to the unsuspecting public to try out. They own the FDA. It is the old Lee Iacocca model for the Pinto fiasco. His business philosophy was that it would be cheaper to pay off a few law suits from people killed or injured from the defective car than it would be to pay less than $2 per car for a part that would have prevented an explosion into the passenger compartment from the gas tank. And he was right.
The 80% he is talking about? Where did he get that from?
Like all things republican he pulled it out of his ass, or his wallet?
Here is a list of elected people taking payoffs to cheat the American people and the amounts of bribes being taken. This is just from health care and insurance.
It is mind boggling to think how much these people are taking from others!
Arlen Specter (R-D- PA- $4,026,933)
Max Baucus (DLC- MT- $2,833,731)
Mitch McConnell (R-KY- $2,758,468)
And when you just go right to Big Insurance, the non-presidential candidates who got the biggest legalized bribes were the 7 senators who have been tasked with the job of killing single-payer:
Ben Nelson (DLC-NE- $1,196,799)
Max Baucus (DLC- MT- $1,184,113)
Joe Lieberman (DLC- CT- $1,036,302)
Arlen Specter (R-D- PA- $1,035,530)
Chuck Schumer (D-NY- $981,400)
Mitch McConnell (R-KY- $929,207)
Chuck Grassley (R-IA- $884,724)
We need to investigate and prosecute these criminals now. Severe jail terms are in order for these criminals!
I bet grassley can think of about 885 thousand reasons he is against public health care, everyone of them is green!
republicanism is a mental illness!
I think that's his oh-so delicate way of saying private insurance will be on an uneven playing field if a public option is instituted. Just like Nelson said. You know, because human beings like to be healthy, function, and generally 'live' as it were. And usually they'll choose whatever option gives them the best chance of doing those things.
How the fucking hell could private insurance compete with that? They're too busy stuffing their pockets with cash and looking in the mirror.
Did he pull that number out of his ass? And yes....if 119 million people opt out....please tell me WHY the remaining premiums will have to go up? Do the insurance companies have to make the SAME PROFIT off a smaller number of clients???
This is total bull shit. Wake up and smell the roses. This country NEEDS single payer, government option. Maybe then the insurance companies will "compete"....if it's "so terrible with government provided health care".
IDIOTS!!
so that insurance execs can maintain the lavish lifestyle they've become accustomed to.
says, "When your business decreases, raise your prices." This some how keeps your profits from decreasing. I would think, though, only until you have no one buying anything from you. Then, apparently, they take up armed robbery. Obviously, I have never gone to business school.
All insurance companies do in healthcare is take money that would otherwise go to heal patients.
The free enterprise laws of supply and demand do not exist with healthcare insurance.
The insured is always at the mercy of the insurer. Insurance companies work for stockholders not patients. Single payer is the best option.
Grassley, and other Repubs, are now fixating on a study made by the Lewin Group. No, unlike the Commonwealth Fund, they're not independent. But what they are is owned by United HealthCare.
Olbermann and Maddow need to draw attention to how much $$$$$$$$$$$$ these jokers get from the insurance corporations and BIG Pharma. We know it's HUGE but there are a lot of people out there who have no idea. Olbermann said last night that he had 1,300,000 people watching the night before (he must have been up all night counting).
Come on Keith and Rachel, educate the people on this subject as well as you do on other subjects!!!
... I am laboring under the opinion that no one not working in the health industry (doctors, hospitals, clinics) should get rich off of my dilemma.
I also want to tell Gingrich, who asked if American women want to have breast cancer surgery declined as happens in Englend (without any references) if they would rather be dumped on skidrow because hospitals can't afford law-mandated emergency care, which is all an uninsured person can get.
It is just amazing how these people think health care in the U.S. is the best in the world. B.S.!!! And why is it that an MRI on my back here cost $4000 or I can go to Thailand and get the same thing for $700??? How does that work?
Maybe because in the US the costs of the healthcare for all the technicians that maintain/run the MRI, as well as the doc who interperets the datum, are added to the cost of the procedure. Dunno if this is true in Thailand or if healthcare there is run differently.
Just a thought on why. I have this thing about trying to answer rhetorical questions.
could chuck wood?
This Grassly jerk is a sick Mo Fo. He's lucky though because we pay for his health care. God damn hypocrite.
Leave it to America to show the rest of the world how ineffective it really is when it comes to taking care of its citizens. Any normal functioning democracy would put to the PEOPLE to decide what they want.
Why do we even bother voting for congresspeople when all they do is represent big business and the corporations that are sucking this country dry? All they need to do is throw a few million dollars towards someone's campaign to guarantee that they will fellate them until the cows come home.
The fact is that the MAJORITY of Americans are unhappy with their health insurance! Talk to any random person on the street and I'm sure you'll find over 80% of the people are PISSED OFF about how they've been screwed six ways from sunday by their health insurance.
I have a friend with three children who is in danger of losing her California healthcare thanks to the Republitards in office who cannot pass a functioning budget. Her only option for healthcare will now be to pay 1100 dollars PER MONTH so that her kids can be covered. That's more than she pays for rent and groceries which she can barely cover, so how the hell is she supposed to pay 13,200 bucks per year?
No, this country has been hijacked by the wealthy elite who are literally trying to kill the rest of us off. THIS MUST END!
election!
I love it when some idiot says that Canada and England have single payer and it does not work. You want to know was does not work? The health care here in the U.S. Why the hell does it cost $10,000 to put braces on your kid??? That is straight up thievery.
Obama just said, right NOW, that we spend 50% MORE on health care than the next country. That is criminal. That is insane.
It's all about protecting profits for the insurance companies. (Forgive me for stating the painfully obvious.)
I tend to believe Grassley's claim that "80% of the people are satisfied with the insurance they have" for these reasons; 1) many of those people are insured by their employer and have yet to discover how that cost to their employer is putting their job on the line at every quarterly board meeting. It won't be until they are laid off and begin to shop for private insurance that the horrible truth about all of this will set in, 2) most of those who pay dearly for private insurance aren't sick, haven't yet had a catastrophic injury or health event and, therefore, have yet to discover that they are NOT as "insured" against financial ruin as they thought.
In other words, at least 80% of the people are living in blissful ignorance at all times about the real relationship between their health insurance and financial ruin.
And another thing...why don't the public health insurance proponents ever mention the overall monthly expenses that would be offset by any higher taxes they might have to pay for us to have a public health insurance option? I would be happy to pay, say, an extra $200 per month in taxes (which is probably way over estimating the potential increase) for a public health insurance system that I know will not find a loophole to deny me a covered expense if that meant I could drop the $500 per month in private health insurance premiums I'm paying now for a policy that's a crap-shoot as to whether my expenses are going to be covered or not.
I'm no math whiz, but that example appears to be a certain $300 per month SAVINGS for me to exchange a less reliable insurance policy for a more reliable one and I have no doubt my monthly savings would be much greater than that in a real world situation.
I generally am for a 'public option' in terms of healthcare. However, I have a problem with a few things. How would the government distinguish between those of us who live healthy lifestyles and those of us who don't, in terms of payments for the plan? I, for example, am a vegetarian and exercise at least four to five times a week. I am 34 with great blood pressure, heart rates, etc. In other words, a healthy guy. My neighbor on the other hand, is overweight to the point of obesity, smokes, drinks, never exercises, and eats like cr%p. Why should i pay for his emphasema(sp), heart attack, etc.
I think it is agreed that most americans are overweight and generally unhealthy. What do we do about the drain on the coffers those people will produce?
Until someone can answer me that, or can tell me that my tax dollars will decrease if a live a healthy lifestyle, i am opposed to a public option. My fear is that if healthcare is deemed a 'right', then we may get to the point where we have people suing for discrimination if they have to pay more or are denied treatment of problems that are the direct result of poor lifestyle choices.
I am all for personal responsibility, which is why i am opposed to paying to prop up the least motivated among us who consistently make choices that destroy their bodies.
over by a truck while on your daily run of fitness?
Under the concerns i raised, yes, because my concern was not regarding coincidental things that happen in life, but about direct lifestyle choices that impact not only yourself, but also you neighbor. I can't blame my neighbor for getting hit by a falling tree and requirin medical care, but i can blame him for choosing to pick up that cigarette, for eating cr&p every day instead of healthy food, and for never exercising. Those choices lead to consequences that are borne by society, not just him.
Nobody in Canada ever has to "pay more" or is "denied treatment of problems that are the direct result of poor lifestyle choices."
'Society' is the key word. We must take care of our brothers and sisters.
Each of us is unique. Some of us are healthy, some are not. There are lots of obese Canadians and there are many homeless people here as well. Under the Canadian system, each one of them has medical coverage. It may not be perfect, but it works and is fair to all. Ask any canuck and they will tell you that it's one of the best things about living here.
Ask any canuck and they will tell you that it's one of the best things about living here.
Seconded!
Why should I pay for yours?
Libertarians are funny that way...
what to do about people who for example engage in dangerous pursuits, say paragliding but live otherwise healthy lifestyles?
Now why do you suppose that jurisdictions that do have universal health care have such high taxes on alcohol and tobacco, are considering or have banned the use of trans fats and plan to tax high fructose corn syrup? One can address dietary issues through taxation as a source of funding the health care system. If you live the lifestyle you claim you won't pay those taxes. Problem solved.
Sin taxes are a good idea, but can only go so far, as they eventually produce a diminishing return if the tax/price goes too high. high taxes on junk food, unhealthy foods, etc, can go a long way toward funding public health insurance, as long as the taxes are indeed put toward that use and if the companies who provide such products don't put up too much of a fight. My point is only that one should take personal responsibility for their actions; if that personal responsibility comes in the form of paying a higher tax for eating certain foods or engaging in certain unhealthy lifestyles (e.g. cigarette tax), then that is fine, so long as that tax is in fact used to fund the health insurance program that they will inevitably need. I agree with you that dangerous pursuits like downhill skiing, scuba diving, and skydiving present the same problem, for which i don't have an easy answer.
Are broken and/or sprained ankles, achilles tendon injuries, torn hamstring muscles and torn knee ligaments? These are injuries commonly sustained by people living a 'healthy lifestyle'.
standing, and got hit by it? What if you were hit by the truck on your run because you chose not to look for traffic?
Are you aware that cigarette smoking is considered an addiction far stronger than heroin? Is it your stance then that addicts are not ill, as is the conventional wisdom of the day, but people who make bad choices?
You do already through higher premiums for private insurance and tax dollars that go to pay for uninsured people who can't pay their medical bills.
No reason why a component of the tax on cigarettes, tobacco, etc. couldn't contribute to the funding of single-payer.
You can forget trying to adjust individual premiums - there will never be a reliable way to measure a "healthy lifestyle".
People who make shitty lifestyle choices drive up private ins. healthcare costs as well. And I was JUST at the local public healthcare hospital, where those of us who were caught out w/o med ins (My story: Under/unemployment made it impossible for me to buy healthcare; ironically, my illness kept me under/unemployed, until I was diagnosed with cancer, and now I am totally disabled). Guess what I saw there? A lot of really fat people. Poor fat people. People on oxygen going outdoors to smoke. Mostly on Medicare/ Medicaid.
Guess what? You are paying for them too. Already.
And guess what? At the time of my diagnosis, I was a vegetarian non smoking runner. And if I'd had an earlier diagnosis, you wouldn't be having to help pay my disability. And you wouldn't have had to help shoulder the burden of two longer and complex surgeries and 5 weeks of hospitalisation. And several followups.
But hey. You people, with your inability to think in a non linear fashion, just keep it up. You obviously are devoid of foresight, or this stuff would have crossed your teeny tiny (alleged) mind.
Well, first of all, so what? Oh, that's right - we'll end up like that hell-hole Sweden.
But secondly, no it won't. The US Mail was a government-run monopoly for a long time. The UPS and FedEx saw a way they could do some parts of postal delivery (overnight and packages) better. The ensuing competition has been good for everybody.
If people have a problem with the public option's long lines for costly procedures, a private option can come forward to offer appropriately-priced alternative coverage, and let the people decide whether to wait their turn or pay for faster service.
"Oh, that's right - we'll end up like that hell-hole Sweden."
HA!
I don't want to be just like that hell-hole Sweden. They only get 6 weeks a year for vacation. I want my two weeks and I ain't payin nothin more. Yup.
I really want to keep my private insurance. I over-pay. I can't get in without insurance approval. My deductible is always, questionably too high. And I love the fact I already PAY TAXES to support my current private plan (so I'm paying twice as much). And, my insurance company is so rich it helps them put all their money in the Cayman Islands/Off shore Accounts/so they can evade taxes in the country they make their money. I love rich Americans that don't pay taxes, I'd love to be one. I would love NOT TO PAY TAXES LIKE THE RICH...Those peons that pay taxes are so "stupid"....
I want a public vote. I hate the personal option. I want the friggen rich to be unAmerican and I want to prove to the poor people they need private insurance. So why is Grassley nervous? We're for you old man. Let the public vote on it. Prove you're not a feeble, greedy old phuk! Bring it to an honest vote. Don't make up figures and call them facts.
R.Hood
Make that One Hundred and Nineteen Million and Two. My wife and I would quit our private health care for a good public plan in an Iowa second. Why do Gr-Ass-Lie and his fellow morons hate America so much?
Nineteen Million and five including me and my family.
I am thankfully retired on medicare, but my kids and grandkids are not. In my life I worked for a time as a customer service rep for one of the largest insurance companies and then a caseworker for the state trying to get services for clients. I would so trust a government bureacrat over any for profit worker when trying to get assistance and planning for my healthcare. And I have been and done both...
When you consider what the rest of the american public has. Compared to what Grassley is talking about. People who have Blue cross and blue shield like Grassley. I dont think I would call it an apple cart. You might more accurately call it a treasure chest. Grassley doesn't want his upper crust insurance to have to compete with a program with less over head and no CEO bonuses to have to expend. Apple cart? What F**cking Apple cart?
If I was Andrea Mitchell after hearing him say that I would have said,"So what is wrong with them choosing the public option? Aren't you suppose to be in Congress for the people and not big business or insurance companies?"
Login or Register to post comments.