The Rubes of Engagement

Why there's nothing "un-American" about the health care protests

David Harsanyi | August 12, 2009

They own the bully pulpit. They enjoy a mandate. They can move the votes. They dictate the debate. They write the legislation. They monopolize the coverage.

When it comes to politics, Democrats are U.S. Steel, Ma Bell, and Google all rolled into one. And yet because of a mystifying cosmic event, they are also victims.

In a recent editorial in USA Today, Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and sidekick Steny Hoyer grumbled about how reactionaries are shutting down the voices of the enlightenment on health care. They accused town hall insurrectionists of being "afraid not just of differing views—but of the facts themselves. Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American."

On one point, at least, Pelosi is correct: Many protesters are terrified of fact. Because the fact is every iteration of health care "reform" in Washington is intended to lead us to a single-payer system, which would not only wreck innovation and competition but also inject bean-counting bureaucrats into our health care decisions, from zygote to cremation.

But the notion that grass-roots opponents have the capacity—even by acting boorishly at a smattering of town hall meetings (rudeness, last anyone checked, still is protected by the First Amendment)—to "drown out" the voices of Washington is what our president might call silly.

Pelosi's party operates (in large margins) both houses of Congress, as well as the presidency. Elected fairly and squarely by the American people, no one can stop Democrats from passing any piece of legislation they desire, even if it controls and dispenses a good chunk of the American economy.

The Republican Party, as we all know, is as impotent as it is leaderless. Democrats could pass health care reform today without the benefit of a solitary GOP vote. Democrats certainly don't need the blessing of the mob of irate Brooks Brothers-wearing, un-American, swastika-toting agitators.

If the government-run health bill doesn't pass, it won't be the result of anyone's voice being quashed. In fact, I would be curious to meet the herculean life-form that has the capability to "drown out" either President Barack Obama or Pelosi.

No television, radio, or Web site is immune from the rhetorical maneuverings of our dear leader. Not even "American Idol" could stop Obama from appearing in five prime-time news conferences already. (George W. Bush had four his entire presidency. Don't get me wrong, though; that was best for everyone involved.) If we had any more Obama, he'd require his own station. Oh, wait. ...

Not long ago, ABC News aired a prime-time health care reform misinformercial directly from the White House. Not a single critic was allotted serious time to dispel this hourlong homage to munificent leadership. This, despite the fact that John Stossel, one of ABC News' most popular personalities (and one of the most effective opponents of government-run health care), was, I assume, available to question the president.

If Obama desired a vigorous debate, as he claims, he would debate vigorously. Instead, the president has launched snitch e-mails and a "reality check" section on the White House Web site, which allows the administration to conflate over-the-top accusations (e.g., "death panels"; the only thing being euthanized, of course, would be quality health care) with completely legitimate concerns (the "public option" and how it would displace tens of millions from their current doctors and insurance).

Now a "drowned-out" Pelosi has headed to the pages of the newspaper with the largest circulation in the nation to accuse the growing number of involved citizens who feel the health care agenda threatens their livelihoods and the country's future of acting "un-American." How's that for vigorous debate?

The problem for government-run health care proponents isn't that debate is being "drowned out" by fanatical mobs. Quite the opposite. Their problem is that too many people are finally listening.

David Harsanyi is a columnist at The Denver Post and the author of Nanny State. Visit his Web site at www.DavidHarsanyi.com.

Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

|8.12.09 @ 12:05PM|#

Like any dictator, the Dems really want it to seem like people really want this rather than it being their own private agenda.

jhn|8.12.09 @ 12:17PM|#

"irate Brooks Brothers-wearing"

What? Republicans, outside of the New Criterion, haven't been the well-dressed, preppy-looking party in YEARS.

William|8.12.09 @ 12:18PM|#

Like most commentators who appear in this benighted forum, Harsyani is more interested in staying faithful to right-wing dogma than he is in the truth. Canadians with their single-payer health care system fare better than Americans in every indicator. Americans are the only people in the advanced world who regularly go bankrupt because of medical bills.

|8.12.09 @ 12:20PM|#

Shorter Pelosi: "You ingrates!"

|8.12.09 @ 12:21PM|#

Americans are the only people in the advanced world who regularly go bankrupt because of medical bills.

[citation needed]

24AheadDotCom|8.12.09 @ 12:21PM|#

The article was truly a thought-provoking and timely read. Good job.

Meanwhile, if Reason wants to actually do something, they could pushback against those who are encouraging the opponents of UHC to act like baboons. They could point out that acting like baboons is counter-productive, and they could point out that asking stupid, open-ended things or just ranting wastes time.

Reason could come up with a list of "stumpers" and then encourage people to go ask them. Because, p0wning pols on video would be about a thousand times more effective than angry rants and chants.

So, why isn't Reason doing that? Is it because that's the plan I've been pushing for two and a half years? That can't be it, can it? Or, is it that Reason doesn't really care about this issue, they just want to whine at Beltway cocktail parties.

P.S. Speaking about stumpers, here's the most difficult thing you'll be asked all year: guess which Reason Contributing Editor was one of the sources for the DHS's rightwing extremists report.

<strike>strike through</strike|8.12.09 @ 12:22PM|#

The only real victory will be a total, crushing defeat of whatever compromise bill emerges. Passage of a watered-down bill, even one stripped of "public-option" provisions, will be a disaster, as it will pave the way for much more odious legislation down the road.

|8.12.09 @ 12:22PM|#

Hey William, to borrow from one of the left's favorite saws, if you don't like the health care regime in this country you are free to leave.

Xeones|8.12.09 @ 12:22PM|#

Shut the fuck up, LoneWacko.

|8.12.09 @ 12:24PM|#

Shut the fuck up, LoneDickWad.

|8.12.09 @ 12:25PM|#

Hey, until the third paragraph Lonewhacko was making some sense.

"Meanwhile, if Reason wants to actually do something"

What, exactly, is inside your brain that would make you think Reason must "actually do something"?

You are one bizarre motherfucker.

Vehical Driver|8.12.09 @ 12:29PM|#

Canadians with their single-payer health care system fare better than Americans in every indicator. Americans are the only people in the advanced world who regularly go bankrupt because of medical bills.

I know several Canadians who are going bankrupt paying for health care in the U.S., because the alternative treatment in Canada was hospice and large amounts of pain-killers (i.e. defacto euthanasia). Canada has doctor lotteries, the shortage is so extreme. Canada does poorer than the United States in every single category if you exclude homicides and accidental death.

Don't believe the socialist propaganda. Canada has a dismal soviet style system that can't compare to the United States in any way, shape, or form.

|8.12.09 @ 12:32PM|#

Well, to take lonewacko seriously for a minute (yeah, I know), I do have a couple of questions that I would ask at one of these meetings:

1) If the whole purpose of this legislation is to provide medical care to people that can't afford it, then what's Medicaid for? And what will its role be going forward?

2) Will everyone get the same health care that our congresspeople do, and vice versa?

3) Can I get plastic surgery paid for to implant an ear on my arm like that wierd guy did a few years ago?

|8.12.09 @ 12:35PM|#

The highlight of the article was the description of the Obama/ABC primetime health care special as a "misinformercial." Indeed.

I think the Democrats are in disarray over this for a variety of reasons, but a major one is that few of them probably believe this "reform" is any sort of end point. Thus the workability of the plan doesn't matter to them, and the public at large is starting to notice that. They just want to push things in the single-payer direction. Once any sort of bill is signed, then their hooks will be in, and they can "solve" all problems with more "reforms" and "fixes" which will all push things in the predetermined direction.

And once everyone gets benefits from the government and a huge percentage of us works for them, how many will want anything to do with "limited government"?

hmm|8.12.09 @ 12:39PM|#

I played online games, and still talk online with a Canadian who is wheelchair bound because of a car accident. He never received a catscan of his back because the probability of discovering something new that might have helped him walk was slim.

Fuck that. I want every fucking test, picture, voodoo doctor, chicken blood spilling remedy there is. Through the fucking sink at me if you think it will work. Living the rest of your life in a wheelchair wondering if maybe more could have been done would drive me to a bell tower. With an elevator. I'm going to hell.

Ska|8.12.09 @ 12:42PM|#

I know several Canadians

Racist.

Xeones|8.12.09 @ 12:42PM|#

Hey, until the third paragraph Lonewhacko was making some sense.

It doesn't matter. He's still a hemorrhoid on the anal sphincter of the internet.

Xeones|8.12.09 @ 12:43PM|#

I do have a couple of questions that I would ask at one of these meetings:

Be sure and upload video of that to YouTube.

|8.12.09 @ 12:45PM|#

Aren't the bean counting bureaucrats already involved in our health care decisions?

Xeones|8.12.09 @ 12:53PM|#

Unfortunately yes, Mike -- it's just that the abominations currently winding their way through the Congressional bowel would insert many more bureaucrats into the process while simultaneously cutting back on the beans. The status quo ain't no trip to Cleveland, but "status quo + more of what made it suck so bad in the first place" isn't exactly an improvement.

ugh!|8.12.09 @ 1:07PM|#

Where were these protesters when the GOP was spending money like drunken sailors? Where was the outrage when Bush was constantly given unlimited war spending which coincidentally was not accounted for in the national budget back then?

creech|8.12.09 @ 1:10PM|#

I can think of a bunch of libertarian questions to ask at the Town Hall meeting tonite, but all of them will just get the audience to sympathize with Obama!

However, what one question can I ask that will be most devastating to the people pushing this "reform?"

|8.12.09 @ 1:10PM|#

Where were these protesters when the GOP was spending money like drunken sailors?

Grumbling and then sitting out of the 2006 and 2008 elections, many of them. Unfortunately, that tactic didn't seem to work out well either.

|8.12.09 @ 1:14PM|#

Free speech shmree smeech. These are people being agitated into action by the right-wing propaganda mill, don't know or care about facts, and are basically scared shitless that we have "liberals" in charge, that constant bogeyman who are in all times and all places simply, irredeemably evil, or that's the impression I get from Rush and FOX news (and this place from time to time). It's all fun and games until somebody gets shot, and with all the guns being brought to these events it's only a matter of time.

Vehical Driver|8.12.09 @ 1:16PM|#

Largely, huge deficits and national debt don't seem real. They have negative effects on us, but they don't harm us in a direct way that the economically illiterate (i.e. 90% of the population) can understand.

Where as, shitty healthcare has immediate negative consequences that anyone can understand.

But I am sick and tired of Bush being the excuse for Obama. Bush being bad doesn't make Obama good.

|8.12.09 @ 1:18PM|#

Where were these protesters when the GOP was spending money like drunken sailors?

Being bought off by the prescription benefit? Don't think these protesters are anything but self-interested parasites. I may be glad they're protesting Obama's/Congress' shitty plan, but that still doesn't make them anything other than the vultures they are.

Vehical Driver|8.12.09 @ 1:23PM|#

Free speech shmree smeech. These are people being agitated into action by the left-wing propaganda mill, don't know or care about facts, and are basically scared shitless that we have "conservatives" in charge, that constant bogeyman who are in all times and all places simply, irredeemably evil, or that's the impression I get from Micheal Moore and The New Republic (and this place from time to time). It's all fun and games until somebody gets shot, and with all the guns being brought to these events it's only a matter of time.

Just remember, when the other party is in charge (and the other party will be in charge, eventually), they will use the same methods and tactics to throw you in prison and outlaw your political protests.

Gilbert Martin|8.12.09 @ 1:24PM|#

"Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi grumbled about how reactionaries are shutting down the voices of the enlightenment on health care. She accused town hall insurrectionists of being "afraid not just of differing views-but of the facts themselves."

Ha!

A woman who has a very tenuous grasp on reality yapping about "the facts"!

Such irony.

ugh!|8.12.09 @ 1:27PM|#

Don't we all belive in competitive pricing? Doesn't competition create better service and products? Why don't the health insurance giants seems to understand this?

Timmy|8.12.09 @ 1:30PM|#

Aren't the bean counting bureaucrats already involved in our health care decisions?

My company is a Fortune 500 that is self-insured. They hire one of the big insurance firms to adminster the program for them.

When my wife needed care that was several sigma outside the norm, the adminstrator dragged their feet for over half a year.

I had to petition my way up through our company ladder, and eventually, our VP of Human Resources called their VP and told them to authorize the procedure.

When the contract was up, our company changed administrators.

Good luck replacing the Federal Government.

Anonymous|8.12.09 @ 1:31PM|#

Tony, your Jurnolist tract doesn't fly here unless you fold it into the shape of an airplane, and then we still won't feel sorry for your victimhood even if it bursts into flames.

nebby|8.12.09 @ 1:34PM|#

Being opposed to the types of systems used in every advanced country outside of the US really does require you to have never experienced them. I have never spoken with a person from a wealthy western country that wishes their system was like the US.

Anonymous|8.12.09 @ 1:37PM|#

I have never spoken with a person from a wealthy western country that wishes their system was like the US.

And nobody wants it to stay the same. So you have people who want it all-government and people who want it close to no-government. It's clear which is the better idea, but communists never take "insolvent" as an answer.

kinnath|8.12.09 @ 1:37PM|#

Tony, sheeple of all colors have first amendment rights.

The fact that your shepards disagree with the opposition's shepards does not make the opposition protests invalid.

kinnath|8.12.09 @ 1:38PM|#

I have never spoken with a person from a wealthy western country that wishes their system was like the US.

Useless and irrelvant.

|8.12.09 @ 1:40PM|#

I have never spoken with a person from a wealthy western country that wishes their system was like the US.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Have you ever gone through one of these foreign countries' systems, asshole? I have. NHS in Britain. Fucking awful. Our system has many problems, but single-payer is a nightmare.

|8.12.09 @ 1:43PM|#

There is a universal health care system like planned by Obama in Germany, where I live.
Since more than 120 years!
I don't know why there are people like you who can possibly be against providing the poor, elderly and disabled with free healthcare.
And even the town hall protesters all come from the republic party... And they are lying about it!
...
Either you have no heart, or you are all such enormous morons I don't even know.
...
Voted DOWN in Stumbleupon.

nebby|8.12.09 @ 1:44PM|#

I have been treated by the French system. Absolutely top rate and no worries about the bill driving me bankrupt or finding out the insurance company won't pay because I didn't list a prescription for acne medicine I took ten years earlier.

As for Britain, I would take their health outcomes over the US any day of the week.

Camille Paglia|8.12.09 @ 1:44PM|#

too good to waste

I just don't get it. Why the insane rush to pass a bill, any bill, in three weeks? And why such an abject failure by the Obama administration to present the issues to the public in a rational, detailed, informational way? The U.S. is gigantic; many of our states are bigger than whole European nations. The bureaucracy required to institute and manage a nationalized health system here would be Byzantine beyond belief and would vampirically absorb whatever savings Obama thinks could be made. And the transition period would be a nightmare of red tape and mammoth screw-ups, which we can ill afford with a faltering economy.

Mike|8.12.09 @ 1:45PM|#

People pushing for European style healthcare reform here seem to think that those opposed to it like our current system. I think our current system is *incredibly* broken. I think it needs massive reform. I disagree completely that a European system is the best, or even a good way, to provide this reform. But either no one seems to listen when someone proposes anyone else, or the people shouting loudest against it don't have any other ideas.

|8.12.09 @ 1:47PM|#

I don't know why there are people like you who can possibly be against providing the poor, elderly and disabled with free healthcare.

We already do that. Medicaid and Medicare. SCHIP. Prescription coverage.

Any more uniformed opinions that you'd like to express?

Anonymous|8.12.09 @ 1:47PM|#

Voted DOWN in Stumbleupon.

And here come the Axelturfers.

|8.12.09 @ 1:48PM|#

Either you have no heart, or you are all such enormous morons I don't even know.

Did he just Godwin the thread? Close enough - drink!

|8.12.09 @ 1:49PM|#

As for Britain, I would take their health outcomes over the US any day of the week.

Then you are retarded.

I have been treated by the French system. Absolutely top rate and no worries about the bill driving me bankrupt or finding out the insurance company won't pay because I didn't list a prescription for acne medicine I took ten years earlier.

Really? For what? I'm curious. I watched the Spanish system leave an ex-girlfriend's comatose grandmother in a hospital bed for weeks until the family was able to get the grandmother's savings separated from the grandfather's. Great system for the elderly!

kinnath|8.12.09 @ 1:49PM|#

There are many, many serious problems in the US health care system. The current "reform" packages in congress merely double down on the worst aspects of the current system. None of the options in congress today actually attempt to replicate a European or Canadian system.

kinnath|8.12.09 @ 1:53PM|#

Remember Obama's supporters have been trashing the proposed reforms for weeks, even months, because they don't achieve the holy grail of single-payer.

Now that the opposition is cranked up, suddenly Obama's supporters forget their complaints and focus on the un-American behavior of protestors.

nebby|8.12.09 @ 2:04PM|#

"Really? For what? I'm curious. I watched the Spanish system leave an ex-girlfriend's comatose grandmother in a hospital bed for weeks until the family was able to get the grandmother's savings separated from the grandfather's. Great system for the elderly!"

Tumor on my parrotid. Beautiful care and no stress.

As for the grandma, was there some medical care she needed that she did not receive? If the issue was just one of transferring her to long term care, that is a problem in the US as well. Many elderly are faced with spending down ans the attendant waits to meet requirements for assistance with nursing home style care.

Spoonman|8.12.09 @ 2:04PM|#

kinnath, that's the mindblowing thing. Nobody likes this bill, but if you oppose it, you're a terrorist. What the hell?

|8.12.09 @ 2:04PM|#

Don't we all belive in competitive pricing? Doesn't competition create better service and products? Why don't the health insurance giants seems to understand this?

All health insurance carriers in the US are regulated to the point where they may not vary in product offerings aside from a few minor things on one cares about like gym memberships, so the only competition they can have is which doctors and hospitals are in their networks and it turns out most doctors want to be in lots of networks. Then all there is left is the negotiated payments to those doctors which are fairly close.

If insurers were allowed to offer plans based on customer needs and wants (from catastrophic to comprehensive) and risk based pricing they could offer so much variety and the barriers of entry would be considerably less, you'd see as many insurers as you see for car insurance where those factors allow for lower prices and better competition.

We can still have Medicaid and Medicare and they could be paid for if the $134 billion per year we spend nationally on the War on Drugs were redirected to them.

Insurance companies that have competition have a greater incentive to not screw their customers lest they leave them for a competitor. How does one leave the government plan if there is no alternative?

|8.12.09 @ 2:08PM|#

"There is a universal health care system like planned by Obama in Germany, where I live.
Since more than 120 years!"

Utter. Bullshit.

nebby|8.12.09 @ 2:09PM|#

kinnath,

I agree that it is a crime we are not adopting the best elements of the systems proven to work. Better health outcomes and significant cost reductions would usually be enough evidence, but we are really dealing with hype and ignorance driven by PR firms paid for with the profits of insurance companies. (Those profits have risen fourfold in the last seven years by the way. That is not going to doctors or health care, that is going to insurance company profits alone.)

|8.12.09 @ 2:10PM|#

Man up and die.

That is all.

|8.12.09 @ 2:13PM|#

" The current "reform" packages in congress merely double down on the worst aspects of the current system."

I've heard several Obamacare supporters use the term "double dow" and the first thing that pops into my brain is "sucker's bet"

|8.12.09 @ 2:14PM|#

As for the grandma, was there some medical care she needed that she did not receive?

She needed to be in a nursing home with full care. The government-run ones were all full, so they just let her rot in a hospital bed until the family got the money from the grandfather and used it to pay for a private nursing home.

|8.12.09 @ 2:15PM|#

Really? For what? I'm curious. I watched the Spanish system leave an ex-girlfriend's comatose grandmother in a hospital bed for weeks until the family was able to get the grandmother's savings separated from the grandfather's. Great system for the elderly!

Epi...."choice" is only for abortions.

And those will be covered under the new health regime!

|8.12.09 @ 2:16PM|#

"but we are really dealing with hype and ignorance driven by PR firms paid for with the profits of insurance companies. (Those profits have risen fourfold in the last seven years by the way)"

Not in Minnesota, where by law, all insurance companies are not-for-profit.

kinnath|8.12.09 @ 2:18PM|#

I agree that it is a crime we are not adopting the best elements of the systems proven to work.

First, I oppose any attempt to replicte a single-payer system in the US.

Second, the current reform package is a complete disaster, because it actually amplifies the problems that exist in the current system.

The correct solution is to deregulate insurance and crush the AMA.

|8.12.09 @ 2:19PM|#

Those profits have risen fourfold in the last seven years by the way. That is not going to doctors or health care, that is going to insurance company profits alone.)

Listen up. I'm just gonna type this once.

Insurance companies make profit by taking premiums and investing that money before making payment of claims. Ex. you pay for a year of premiums before you see go to the hospital. The insurer collected interest via investment for 12 months before they had to put that money in the hospital's hands. That is where their profit comes from. The stock market was doing quite well up until late 2007 so they had plenty of time to earn large amounts before the fit hit the shan on Wall Street.

Large profits do not mean they were scalping their customers and denying claims. It means they invested wisely while they held those premiums before payment.

And don't use the false argument that they deny claims just to hold the money longer to collect more interest. The appeals process that a customer would go through to get a claim paid that should have been paid on first pass through the system is more costly than they would probably get from the small amount of accrued interest for a couple months of new premium. And trust me, no insurer wants a lawsuit. The lawyer fees are waaaaay more than the claim they would pay if they are obligated to pay the first time around or the fifth, not to mention the horrible publicity.

The doctors are doing fine (I do have issue with the way hospitals may be reimbursed in many cases) and customers are not getting denied coverage for services they should be getting or you'd hear about a bazillion lawsuits with huge settlements every day. Denied claims are usually bureacratic clerical errors, failure of a patient or doctor to file an appropriate covered claim, or coverage does not exist for the service. It's not from malicious intent. The peons who pay or deny claims get no reward for denial of coverage, trust me, I was one for 4.5 years.

nebby|8.12.09 @ 2:19PM|#

"She needed to be in a nursing home with full care. The government-run ones were all full, so they just let her rot in a hospital bed until the family got the money from the grandfather and used it to pay for a private nursing home."

Hospitals are equal to any nursing home as far as "full care" they are just much more expensive places to provide that care. The problem you are describing (lack of enough government funded long term care beds and families difficulty paying for private options), is the same in the US. That doesn't really argue against either health system. It is a separate issue from the one we are discussing. The main difference is that here in the US the hospital care is likely to be a huge financial burden before the long term care situation is even addressed.

|8.12.09 @ 2:22PM|#

". . . we are really dealing with hype and ignorance driven by PR firms paid for with the profits of insurance companies. (Those profits have risen fourfold in the last seven years by the way. . . .)

Citation?

kinnath|8.12.09 @ 2:27PM|#

we are really dealing with hype and ignorance driven by PR firms paid for with the profits of insurance companies.

My side provides information so that an informed population can make rational decision. The other side uses propaganda to scare the population into behaving like sheep.

Same song, different verse: the 60's, the 70's, the 80's, the 90's, the 00's, and the rest of my life I am sure.

deluded1|8.12.09 @ 2:27PM|#

Denied claims are usually bureacratic clerical errors, failure of a patient or doctor to file an appropriate covered claim, or coverage does not exist for the service.

Bullshit. Insurance companies will fight tooth and nail to deny coverage on simple things which are specifically acknowledged to be covered in their documentation. I have a number of doctors and nurses in my family (and my house) and I hear daily the ridiculous attempts to get basic services or prescriptions covered that are summarily denied. They are in fact trained to say "No" to initial claims over X # of dollars. In fact, I know several practices that are forced to keep a person on the payroll who spends their entire day trying to get a "yes" from insurance companies for prescriptions, procedures, or referrals that they have approved in the past (on the same plan). You either worked at the most unlikely insurance in the world, or you're full of shit.

Jordan|8.12.09 @ 2:27PM|#

And Rush Limbaugh caused the OKC bombing.

nebby|8.12.09 @ 2:29PM|#

"....and customers are not getting denied coverage for services they should be getting or you'd hear about a bazillion lawsuits with huge settlements every day."

As someone who deals with insurance adjusters regularly... bullshit. If you are in the industry you know about recission. There is always a way to deny care. 805 of the people you screw over will just walk away. Pure profit. Of the remaining 20% you string them along and keep asking for additional documentation. Interest and investment income during this time is pure profit. many people will give up during this process. All those people are pure profit. the dogged few who go through the whole process that you can't screen out for some unrelated minor error on the application you pay the claim.

That is the game in all insurance. Premiums come in fast.. benefits go out slow.. reap the investment income caused by this float. Bad faith is the standard system.

|8.12.09 @ 2:29PM|#

Hospitals are equal to any nursing home as far as "full care" they are just much more expensive places to provide that care.

Absolute bullshit. The hospital was a place to stick her--it was a standard room with a nurse dropping by every few hours. The care she received there was terrible, just enough to keep her alive (she was very messed up). She needed the full care and socialization of a nursing home. The family was freaking out until they got her into a private nursing home, the hospital care was so bad.

Frank|8.12.09 @ 2:33PM|#

The protesters are very un-American, in fact I think they are guilty of treason and should be prosecuted as health care terrorists. How dare they keep us all from safe and effective medicine. You have a right to have an opinion, but not to go against the government.

nebby|8.12.09 @ 2:35PM|#

Citation?

http://hcfan.3cdn.net/1b741c44183247e6ac_20m6i6nzc.pdf

kinnath|8.12.09 @ 2:35PM|#

Nebby, whatever problems exist in the insurance industry, you can be assured that "reform" that REQUIRES everyone to buy insurace; maintains the employer as the primary if not sole source of health insurance; and prohibits robust competition between insurerance providers will make the situation much, much worse very quickly.

Rich|8.12.09 @ 2:37PM|#

"Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American."

As opposed to *complexly* un-American, like their legislation.

nebby|8.12.09 @ 2:37PM|#

You can say bullshit all you want. Nursing homes are a step down in intensity of treatment from hospitals. When people get very ill at a nursing home they go to a hospital.

The socialization aspect is valid, but that leads us right back to the long term care issue rather than the health care issue in general.

|8.12.09 @ 2:38PM|#

Some skeptics of libertarian orthodoxy making postings at Reason.com on articles about health care reform, minimum wages, taxes, etc., just don't seem understand the house rules of this board. In light of the confusion, I offer the following as a helpful capsule of how right-thinking libertarians are able to conclusively refute the contentions of any interlocutor:

Step 1 -- "The Argument-Ender"
Government is evil (except when it isn't), and an argument is conclusively won by pointing out that the opponent's position involves government action (other than cracking ribs and skulls for the institutional creditor class).

Step 2 -- "Efficiency is for Everybody!"
In the event further proof is needed, it may be pointed out that government intervention always produces enormous inefficiencies that leaves absolutely everyone, including the very least among us, much worse off than they would be if left to the tender mercies of our infallible corporate overseers of capital formation.

Step 3 -- "The New-Deal/Great-Society Holdomor"
In the event that a skeptic adduces some cogent evidence that at least some persons in a needy condition are actually better off because of a government intervention than such persons would be absent the government intervention, then you are a FILTHY STALINIST HIGHWAY ROBBER WHO WANTS TO FORCE OTHERS INTO SLAVERY TO FULFILL YOUR OWN SICK LUST FOR POWER!!!

Have fun.

nebby|8.12.09 @ 2:42PM|#

"Nebby, whatever problems exist in the insurance industry, you can be assured that "reform" that REQUIRES everyone to buy insurace; maintains the employer as the primary if not sole source of health insurance; and prohibits robust competition between insurerance providers will make the situation much, much worse very quickly."

I agree. The plan you outline is ridiculous and a waste compared to the proven successes of the French or German model. That is why the public option is critical. Without that competition there is no reason for insurance companies to be responsive to their insureds. Most markets have very little real competition when it comes to health care. Insurance companies have been consolidating for years now and a few companies control most ogf the market areas.

Anonymous|8.12.09 @ 2:43PM|#

You can say bullshit all you want. Nursing homes are a step down in intensity of treatment from hospitals. When people get very ill at a nursing home they go to a hospital.

Bullshit. There's a difference between acute and chronic care; and, based on the story given, the hospital was only interested in the former.

kinnath|8.12.09 @ 2:46PM|#

The plan you outline is ridiculous and a waste compared to the proven successes of the French or German model.

We're not French, and we're not German.

As the great Howard Dean explained, the French and German systems work because we leveled their infrastructure and started over 50 years ago.

As long as we're going to talk about starting over from scratch, I prefer a libertarian model to a progressive one.

|8.12.09 @ 2:47PM|#

Nursing homes are a step down in intensity of treatment from hospitals. When people get very ill at a nursing home they go to a hospital.

Wrong. The hospital was a place to put her as there was no where else. She didn't need a hospital bed, she needed a nursing home, but there was no room. Rationing, bitches.

Anonymous|8.12.09 @ 2:49PM|#

the French and German systems work because we leveled their infrastructure and started over 50 years ago.

Not to mention a dearth of military spending. Nice how that provides breathing room to every murderous philosphy invented to subjugate men. Maybe that should serve as a hint to let them destroy each other like they want to.

Bud Fudlacker|8.12.09 @ 2:49PM|#

Schulze:

Ahh, I guess you haven't had a real debated until the stereotypical German 'besserwisser' chimes in with his zwei pfennig.

nebby|8.12.09 @ 2:50PM|#

"Wrong. The hospital was a place to put her as there was no where else. She didn't need a hospital bed, she needed a nursing home, but there was no room. Rationing, bitches."

There is rationing of long term care in both systems. Again, how does this argue for keeping the US system of standard health care? Is your only point that other countries share our shortage of long term care beds?

|8.12.09 @ 2:52PM|#

Those profits have risen fourfold in the last seven years by the way.

Notice how people who use this talking point never tell you what those profits actually are?

That's because health insurance is a very low margin business. That four-fold increase takes their margins all the way from 1.25% to 5%.

Ooooh, scary.

Denied claims are usually bureacratic clerical errors, failure of a patient or doctor to file an appropriate covered claim, or coverage does not exist for the service.

You wanna know something? Medicare denies claims, too, for these very reasons, and generally at a rate at least equal to that of the private insurers. And Obamacare will also.

EscapedWestofTheBigMuddy|8.12.09 @ 2:53PM|#

Canadians with their single-payer health care system fare better than Americans in every indicator.

Except one or two like actual outcome from actual life threatening diseases: http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/08/5-yr-cancer-survival-rates-us-dominates.html

While the blog entry discusses the USA-vs-Europe part of the paper, the paper covers various studies that compare Canada and the USA in a few diseases. Results: population averaged care for breast and prostate cancer in the States is comparable to or better than that in Canada.

Quote from the studies abstract: "We conclude that the low longevity ranking of the United States is not likely to be a result of a poorly functioning health care system."

How can this be when the US has lower life expectancies? As has been explained many times in this and other forums:

* Different (more comprehensive and accurate) reporting of early infant mortality in the USA as compared to many other countries
* The US population suffers a higher rate of traumatic injury from (mostly) violent crime and automobile accidents.

and of course

* all those "uninsured" we keep being told are in such dire need of "health care" actually have access to the health care system through several means.

Alice Bowie|8.12.09 @ 2:54PM|#

I personally feel that we should abandon employer-sponsored healthcare.

To those who prefer HSA...I hate 2 tell U.

You will NEVER be able to SAVE enough to pay for the delivery of your Two Kids, the occasional sniffles, a stroke, cancer, etc. etc. etc.

Unless one is so mean-spirited ... and can give a shit of another person's child developing Leukemia...I guess HSA is OK.

We need the Pyramid Scheme. A Pyramid Scheme involving all Americans. It's really the only way healthcare coverage can work.

Let's Take a simple example:

You make $100,000 per year.
You get a 5% raise per year for ten years
You put away 10% of you salary: $10,000
Assume that you've NOT PLAYED the STock MarKeT...It looks like the follwing table:
Year Base H.S.A
1 100,000 10,500
2 105,000 22,050
3 110,250 34,729
4 115,763 48,620
5 121,551 63,814
6 127,628 80,406
7 134,010 98,497
8 140,710 118,196
9 147,746 139,620
10 155,133 162,889
TOTAL in UR H.S.A Acct 162,889

Let me TELL U... You will NEVEr, Ever, eVeR Save enough money to truly pay for your Health Care.

And as for poor people...that can't afford giving birth...I'm sure the libertarian/conservative community can setup regulations we can make the poor men impotent...so that we don't have to pay for them...and make it everyone's personal responsibility to pay for their own child births.

kinnath|8.12.09 @ 2:55PM|#

Without that competition there is no reason for insurance companies to be responsive to their insureds.

Let's see, existing regulation essentially wipe out competition between the major players in the insurance industry.

Nebby's solution. Add a public option so that the federal government competes with private industry {forget that the post office can't compete with UPS/FedX per Obama}.

kinnath's solution, strip away the regulations that suppress competition between existing and future private companies.

Most likely solution, Obama condemns Blue Cross / Blue Shield; fires its CEO; then takes majority interest in the company.

|8.12.09 @ 2:58PM|#

Hey deluded1, have you heard of Blue Shield and Blue Cross? They're kinda famous. The doctors offices that have a person dedicated to dealing with the insurance company for approvals have them because they agreed to accept HMO patients. They're supposed to have a contact with the insurer. That means their patients' care is managed and the provider has agreed to be responsible for services the insurance company has not agreed to cover, meaning the patient is not held liable despite the waivers they always try to get them to sign.

I can't tell you how many times I've had to tell providers (the same ones usually) that certain procedure codes are not covered EVER or that they are NOT permitted to bill the patient for their failure to know what the plan covers. Yet other providers seem to GET IT and know exactly what they are supposed to bill. It's the same people over and over again that don't know what they're doing, at least in my experience.

|8.12.09 @ 3:03PM|#

There is rationing of long term care in both systems.

There is less than an infinite supply of long term care in both systems. Not every allocation of a limited supply is rationing, else the word has no meaning.

Mike M.|8.12.09 @ 3:06PM|#

Speaking about stumpers, here's the most difficult thing you'll be asked all year: guess which Reason Contributing Editor was one of the sources for the DHS's rightwing extremists report.

Too easy, I guessed it before I even looked it up.

After all, there aren't too many Reason contributors who shilled for Obama all throughout the election, then bugged out for a Soros-funded site about ten seconds after the election was over.

|8.12.09 @ 3:06PM|#

There is rationing of long term care in both systems. Again, how does this argue for keeping the US system of standard health care?

Again, how does this argue for adopting a European-style system?

nebby|8.12.09 @ 3:06PM|#

"Nebby's solution. Add a public option so that the federal government competes with private industry {forget that the post office can't compete with UPS/FedX per Obama}."

If the public insurance option is the post office is in this scenario and can't compete then the insurance companies have nothing to worry about. Judging by the money they are spending on PR and bribes, the insurance companies do not share your faith in their business models.

The whole regulation point is a canard anyway. You can get a wide variety of insurance policies from catastrophic coverage only to supposedly comprehensive. What are these mythical choices you can't get? I can tell you that I buy my insurance on the private market and not one company covered pregnancy in my market. Not at any price. I paid 14,000 out of pocket. If insurance covered it, their payment to the hospital would have been 3,000. Every single policy purchased by a large employer in my area covers pregnancy. The fix is in.

nebby|8.12.09 @ 3:08PM|#

"Again, how does this argue for adopting a European-style system?"

The 95% of health care that is not LTC?

The better results at a fraction of the price?

Anonymous|8.12.09 @ 3:12PM|#

The better results at a fraction of the price?

That's why all of their systems are solvent! And after all their defense spending, too! And with such fantastic employment figures, what with the high taxes!

Jordan|8.12.09 @ 3:13PM|#

The better results at a fraction of the price?

Lifestyle differences. See EscapedWestofTheBigMuddy's post at 2:53.

deluded1|8.12.09 @ 3:15PM|#

Wow, Nick, what a lack of rebuttal. I'll have to assume that you're saying that you worked for Blue Shield and Blue Cross. I'm sure you thought you were being very clever. But since we are posting on the internet, and I can't see your smirk and bloated self-satisfaction through the intertubes, you may wish to be clearer next time.

That being said, Blue Shield and Blue Cross is without a doubt one of the best insurance companies for coverage. I also know quite well how the trained monkeys who answer the phone (and have absolutely no medical knowledge whatsoever) will screw over patients. This is because they are told to say "no" right off the bat. And, after 2 or 3 hours on a single phone call, it will be required for the doctor to get on the phone and demand to speak with the doctor on staff (since they won't speak with anyone but the provider). Only to find out, that the request is, in fact, covered. Now, I'm not sure if you're one of those trained monkey's or not, but I do know that this is status quo for the business, your bullshit notwithstanding.

And the specific roles in practices I speak of are actually technically knowledgable about the requests (usually MA's) who call back after the first denial of service. The office manager or accounting department is usually the person responsible for the contact with the insurer.

|8.12.09 @ 3:16PM|#

nebby, it sounds like your problem is that your insurance coverage sucks compared to that of an employee of a large company? Why is it acceptable to remedy that by forcing all of us to pay for the birth of YOUR kid?

It's all fun and games until somebody gets shot, and with all the guns being brought to these events it's only a matter of time.

It's interesting that the real plants at rallies have been democrat machine paid ones the only violence has been by SIEU thugs and Obama Hitler signs have been Democrat staffer plants.

But I bet you can't wait for the government crackdowns. A couple dead appleheads will chill the conversation real quick don't you think?

nebby|8.12.09 @ 3:17PM|#

"There is less than an infinite supply of long term care in both systems. Not every allocation of a limited supply is rationing, else the word has no meaning."

I am not talking about some amorphous idea of rationing based on cost. In every country in the world if you have independent wealth there is a LTC solution for you. Do you think the LTC beds for people who are not in that fortunate position are not rationed in the US?

nebby|8.12.09 @ 3:23PM|#

"nebby, it sounds like your problem is that your insurance coverage sucks compared to that of an employee of a large company? Why is it acceptable to remedy that by forcing all of us to pay for the birth of YOUR kid?"

Nope, the problem is a lack of competition in the individual insurance market has led to a market failure. All I am asking for is a choice. The public option is a group plan for the people not employed by a large employer. Do we believe small businesses are a positive to the economy? Why do you want to punish them for not being IBM?

|8.12.09 @ 3:24PM|#

This article is complete bullshit. To state that disrupting townhall meetings and not allowing those who truly don't have an opinion ask questions and recieve answers is not unamerican (which prides itself on civil discourse) is completely disingenuous.

Larry the Cable Guy|8.12.09 @ 3:24PM|#

Larry the Cable Guy here again. Health Care Reform sure sounds better than Health Care Deform. GIT-R-DUN!

|8.12.09 @ 3:25PM|#

Alice profoundly misunderstands the purpose of HSAs. They are offered in conjunction with high-deductible plans. They are intended, not to allow you to pay out-of-pocket for all your health care, but to allow you to pay high co-pays and deductibles under a catastrophic care policy.

High co-pays and deductibles under a catastrophic care policy are how you put the consumer back into the game in health care, and are the only way you are ever going to get people to evaluate whether any procedure is worth the cost, for them.

Tomcat1066|8.12.09 @ 3:26PM|#

"Nope, the problem is a lack of competition in the individual insurance market has led to a market failure. All I am asking for is a choice."

And you would be surprised at the number of regulations that actually prevent competition in the insurance market. It's not a market failure, it was rent seeking behavior to help the big boys protect their bottom line and muscle out future competition.

nebby|8.12.09 @ 3:29PM|#

"It's not a market failure, it was rent seeking behavior to help the big boys protect their bottom line and muscle out future competition."

If you have some proof that regulations are the problem I would be happy to look at it.

|8.12.09 @ 3:31PM|#

deluded1, I was a trained monkey for a while, and thanks for disparaging Customer Service positions. We didn't have enough problems with unruly customers who incorrectly think just like you. Despite what you think is your extensive knowledge of our operations, none of us were trained to say "no" without cause. Most claims go through the system without ever denying, that is, when they are submitted properly. The ones that denied would get referred to us when a customer or provider called and 9 times out of 10 we'd investigate the error and correct it or, yes, ask for correct information from the provider. It is NOT standard operating procedure to deny claims for no reason. Sorry to ruin your only apparent reason for taking the reform position. It's just not true and of the people I know that have worked at other insurers, it's not their standard practice either for the many reasons I have detailed above.

I no longer work for a health insurer so I have no reason to defend them now. I'm telling you we had no such mandate to deny anything unless it was NOT COVERED. In fact, many of us would bend over backwards to pay claims, and we also paid some on courtesy for customers or providers who made mistakes as an educational tool, similar to how a credit card company might let you slide on your first late payment as a courtesy. We were not out to get anyone, and we were NEVER persuaded by management to delay anything. We were expected to handle issues quickly and correctly.

Besides, the NY Insurance Dept was not forgiving to denial or delay tactics so we were trying to avoid denials if there was any question as to whether there should be coverage for a service. And if a customer service rep ever gave out misinformation that led someone to get a service performed that was not really covered by the plan, we HAD to pay those.

RC Dean - you hit it right on the head re: Alice's comment. I was just going to post the same. Profound isn't even the word for the misunderstanding. Its so off base, it almost has to be intentional.

I have (and LOVE) my high deductible plan and it operates EXACTLY the way you say. Until Obamacare I thought high deductible plans were the future.

Considering their upside, I'm shocked they aren't being considered. Then again, this isn't really about care, quality or cost, its about control, isn't it?

|8.12.09 @ 3:42PM|#

Nope, the problem is a lack of competition in the individual insurance market has led to a market failure. All I am asking for is a choice. The public option is a group plan for the people not employed by a large employer. Do we believe small businesses are a positive to the economy? Why do you want to punish them for not being IBM?

I agree anyone should be able to form a group to negotiate a better insurance rate. I have heard that offered previously as part of the health insurance solution, but not as part of Obama's plan even though it's over 1000 pages. It is regulation, at least in NY that I know of, that has stopped groups from forming that are not tied to an employer. I will look for a link.

A public option requires taxpayers who already buy insurance to subsidize those who accept the public option. That is unfair to those of us already paying for our own. Let the public option stand on its own premuims and they can do whatever the hell they want. But they are trying to also further regulate the private insurers when they should be deregulating them and just enforcing the contract. If so many people like deluded1 are getting screwed, the govt SHOULD step in, but I haven't seen that to be true.

|8.12.09 @ 3:45PM|#

Nick & Deluded - I've called furniture stores, phone stores, cable providers, you name it, and gotten bad customer service. I've called twice in the same day and gotten two different answers. I've been told the problem is mine when clearly it wasn't. I've been told to "clean" my coax lines by CS, and then had then called back and had the CS tech laugh at the fact that that was suggested as a solution.

LSS - you get bad customer service someplaces. Its not necassarily, or even hardly ever, a corporate plot to ruin your day/life. When its cable service, its sucks, but who cares.

The only difference is that when it comes to health care is its damn important.

I don't want a system where the CS jobs are not only lifetime jobs (government) but where there is no option to take my business some place else.

Alice Bowie|8.12.09 @ 3:48PM|#

Big B and RC Dean.

I don't have ANY misunderstanding about HSA.

What I'm saying is if I'm paying $1,000 per month for my families healthcare premiums on a HIGH DEDUCTABLE plan and I'm pay $1,000 per month towards my HSA, and I'm paying $2,000 in rent, and $600 in car expenses...how much do I have to make so that I can go out and buy a hot dog every now and then?

I just think I'm just better off not having any insurance at all, keeping my $2,000 in a mattress, and just deal with Healthcare costs out of pocket.

Because, the fact is, when you deplete you HSA, your savings account, retirement account, etc...you'll be in the same boat.

I'm glad you guys have enjoyed you HIGH deductible plans. I hope nothing ever happens to either of you or your families.

Just keep in mind, the people who are against healthcare reform are healthy. The people you see declaring bankruptcy after serious illness are the people that want healthcare.

It's a luxury to be a conservative...to be rich. It's just mean-spirited to shit on people who are down on their luck.

|8.12.09 @ 3:48PM|#

Nick - I'm with you. I think maybe a "public cooperative" would work. I think some states allow them.

Sadly, its not being suggested. Only one option is being suggested. So much for "debate" and considering other options, huh, Mr. Messiah.

And worse, I'm afraid a cooperate tied to the government woulddn't be allowed to fail, it would just be subsidized.

|8.12.09 @ 3:49PM|#

It's quite long and not actually a news article about scuttling the legislation, but it's all I could find at the moment.

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/mics13.htm

The Gobbler|8.12.09 @ 3:50PM|#

Politco's Martin Kady reports that Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) is none too pleased with Obama's crediting him yesterday for the end-of-life counseling provisions in the health-care bill:

Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), didn't appreciate President Obama's shout-out at the New Hampshire town hall meeting this afternoon.

Obama said that the voluntary end-of-life counseling in one version of the bill had a Republican sponsor - and he mentioned Isakson by name.

And that set off the senator from Georgia.

"Isakson vehemently opposes the House and Senate health care bills, and he played no role in drafting language added to the House bill by House Democrats calling for the government to incentivize doctors by offering them money to conduct end-of-life counseling," Isakson's office said in a statement.

"This is what happens when the President and members of Congress don't read the bills," Isakson said in a statement. Robert Gibbs has refused to say whether or not President Obama will read the health-care bill.

|8.12.09 @ 3:52PM|#

Alice - $1,000 on premiums? You really must not have an HSA/high deductible plan, or you would know that is BS.

My medical premiums are $62/mo for my family plan. That's not even $1,000/yr.

A high deductible plan has LOW premiums BECAUSE of the high deductible (HD). You don't get a HD AND high premiums.

The premiums are LOW because the insurer doesn't have to pay as much, because you are paying up to that deductible limit before they kick in anything. Its essentially catostrophic coverage.

Like a car. If car insurance paid for oil changes and tires, your premium would be twice what it is now.

|8.12.09 @ 3:54PM|#

Alice, most HSA's don't cost $1000/mo plus $1000/mo into the account. Most LOW or NO deductible/non-HSA plans could be had for $1000/mo or close to it. I think you're getting screwed, but it's from your lack of knowledge. No offense. I recommend seeking different insurance because I agree what you are paying is ridiculous. That would be my assessment regardless of your health and well-being.

Gilbert Martin|8.12.09 @ 3:55PM|#

"I have (and LOVE) my high deductible plan and it operates EXACTLY the way you say. Until Obamacare I thought high deductible plans were the future.

Considering their upside, I'm shocked they aren't being considered. Then again, this isn't really about care, quality or cost, its about control, isn't it?"

Thats' exactly what it's about - that and wealth redistribution.

If you have a no-frills high-deductable catasrophic coverage type plan coupled with a HSA, you are't being forced to subsidize the traditional sponge, leech and parasite class that is the traditional Democratic party constituent group enough to suit them. So that has to be nipped in the bud.

One of the most salient comments I've read recently was when John Stossel said that forcing insurance companies not to deny coverage for people with pre-existing conditions isn't wasn't "insurance" - it's welfare and should be labeled as such.

Imagine what your car insurance premiums would be if the government forced your insurance company to sign up people who had just crashed their car and required the insurance company to pay to fix it.

The purpose of insurance is to insure against a risk of something that MIGHT happen in the future. It is not to reimburse people for something that has already happened to them who didn't have any insurance beforehand.

|8.12.09 @ 3:57PM|#

Alice - my high deductible (HD) would never empty my retirement. My savings, maybe, but lots of stuff can do that.

You're protected from disaster by a HD plan because, once you reach the deductible, your PLAN pays the rest, or substantially all of the remaining costs.

My deductible (combined wife & I) is something like $3,500/yr. I've saved up and used some, but I'm essentially at that point. I can now pay that with my HSA or straight out of my savings account. But once I hit 3,500, insurance covers substantially all of the costs. In other words, I'm nowhere near bankrupt or broke if I have kids or get sick. Poorer, yes, broke, no.

|8.12.09 @ 3:59PM|#

The purpose of insurance is to insure against a risk of something that MIGHT happen in the future. It is not to reimburse people for something that has already happened to them who didn't have any insurance beforehand.

Thank you! I'm glad someone gets it.

Alice Bowie|8.12.09 @ 4:01PM|#

Na, i may have mentioned it before...but NYC Metro area coverage is pretty high.

Right now I'm employed, so I personally pay about $580.00 per month for a family plan. There's a $10,000 per year co-insurance ... and they pay 90% over that.

So far, so good for me and my family. I'm 44, my wife is 31 and my kids are 3 and 1.

My 39yo friend had a stroke...It's completely over for him though.

When I was a consultant...and I use to buy coverage, it was about $1,089 per month. And it was basically the same plan.

Now-a-days, here in NYC, the plans u r talking about do NOT cost $62.00 per month. Don't get me wrong, you can definitely buy one of those DISCOUNT plans for that cheap...but they cover NOTHING.

See for yourself at e-healthinsurance.com and look at my zipcode 10019. It's pretty expensive around here.

George W Bush|8.12.09 @ 4:02PM|#

"Considering their upside, I'm shocked they aren't being considered. Then again, this isn't really about care, quality or cost, its about control, isn't it?"

They were for awhile.

|8.12.09 @ 4:02PM|#

What boggles my mind is people who don't have insurance for whatever reason who refuse to go to a doctor when they need one because they would have to pay him in cash. You're not even paying an insurance premium, yet you're too cheap to pay a doctor $80 to tell you how to fix your medical problem?

And if you're too poor to pay $80 bucks to see a doctor, get on Medicaid. That's why it exists.

The Gobbler|8.12.09 @ 4:04PM|#

"See for yourself at e-healthinsurance.com and look at my zipcode 10019. It's pretty expensive around here."

Perhaps you should change zip codes.

Alice Bowie|8.12.09 @ 4:05PM|#

Perhaps you should change zip codes.

I hear that a lot :>

|8.12.09 @ 4:09PM|#

Wait, Alice, what is the $10,000 coinsurance? Coinsurance is a percentage, not a dollar amount. $580/mo in NYC seems fair considering how much doctors there need to charge to pay office rent and the hospitals are expensive as well. Sounds like you have a reasonable plan. If your friend has the same plan, what's the problem?

I could see $10,000 being the max you would pay per year in coinsurance (you pay 10% while the insurer pays 90%) until they will pay 100%. Is that what you mean? If so, why is that ruining your friend?

Vehical Driver|8.12.09 @ 4:17PM|#

The Democrats are in a conundrum. They spent years attacking the Republicans for not supported government health care... and yet, at the same time, they know the U.S. government is too incompetent to successfully run health care.

For years, the Democrats enjoyed the best of both worlds... they could propose whatever health care fantasy programs they wanted and look like they supported health care reform, yet they knew that the Republicans would dutifully vote it down so they never had to worry about making it work.

Now, Democrats control all branches of government, and now their supporters expect them to deliver on their promises... so the Democrat dilemma is this: Do they vote for the health care bill, and then take the full blame when it inevitably turns to shit... or do they back away from health care, and give up ever being able to attack Republicans on healthcare again?

They are obviously going for the latter... their damage control program is to someone try to convince people that protests at a few propaganda town hall meetings somehow forced them to not use their veto-proof lock-tight majority to pass the bill.

Don't be angry at the protesters... be angry at the Democrats, you brainwashed idiots!

Alice Bowie|8.12.09 @ 4:22PM|#

You know Nick. The first page (Declaration Page) of my policy says that it pays 90% up to the $10,000 out-of-pocket family max. The subsequent 60 pages discuss how they weasle out of paying anything.

It's not what one would think. You really have to read it carefully. And, they are all pretty much the same around here. There's a misconception that these plan pay 100%.

The wildest thing happened to my friend:
- 39yo had a stroke
- In hospital for three weeks (not bad for a stroke)
- Depleted over $10,000 in an HSA
- Lost the job
- The COBRA was about $1,500 per month
- He went on Disability
- Same 90% $10,000 max i have (we worked for same company)
- He's being hounding for over $300,000 in medical bills
- He will NEVER BE ELIGIBLE to obtain healthcare coverage or life insurance AGAIN!
- In fact, in our industry, not only is he uninsurable, he's unemployable...due to the credit score.

He's really screwed.

I'm a burnout...I guess if I get a stroke or heart-attach...I deserve it...and I probably earned it with my past lifestyle.

This is NOT true for my friend. A rather clean-cut fellow that didn't drink heavily, didn't do drugs, and went to the gym. He just happened to be Italian.

These things do happen...and to people that did nothing wrong.

People should STOP equating everyone that gets ill with people who DRIVE DRUNK.

kinnath|8.12.09 @ 4:23PM|#

It is not a market failure if pregnancy insurance is not available in a given location.

Market failure would be all the insurance companies going belly up because they wrote policies they couldn't afford to cover.

|8.12.09 @ 4:31PM|#

They pay 90% of $10,000 before they pay 100%? Those bastards. They make him pay a whopping $1000? String 'em up.

But seriously, I have to know, what is their possible reason for denying coverage on a $300k bill? I'm sure it went to medical review because of the cost, but unless it's an auto accident that should be covered by no fault or cosmetic surgery, what is their excuse?

|8.12.09 @ 4:33PM|#

People should STOP equating everyone that gets ill with people who DRIVE DRUNK.

Who is doing this?

Alice Bowie|8.12.09 @ 5:03PM|#

It's weird.

The 90% coverage is in-network. When he was taken to the emergency room, the hospital is in-network...but virtually none of the Doctors where. So, he fell into that 70% coverage for out of network with the $20,000 co-insurance. That means, that after paying $20,000, they cover 70%.

I've been helping him and his wife go through everything. It's completely crazy. The Hospital room ran over $5,000 per DAY. The insurance company claims that they pay 100% after a $250 a day co-pay. But let me tell you Nick, you'll be very very suprised to find out what is not included in a $5,000 per day hospital room. For example, the Doctor, the Nurse, the Specialists, the medicine, the MRIs, the catscan machine.

Many procedures, medication, and other things were just not covered...and it added up to over $500,000.

The wife got her hand on some advocacy group that helps people resolve these matter with the insurance compnay. Who knows...maybe they can bring it down to $200,000

People should STOP equating everyone that gets ill with people who DRIVE DRUNK.

Who is doing this?

People that BLAME people for having heart attacks.

Alice Bowie|8.12.09 @ 5:05PM|#

For my friend that had a stroke and ended up in a $5,000 per day hospital room. He would have been better off in the ECONO-LODGE...and had the things he needed delivered.

roystgnr|8.12.09 @ 5:05PM|#

Oh, yeah, Germany has been a *model* of state-run medicine for 120 years. Innovative medical experiments, free dental work for people with gold fillings, free showers with a lifetime supply of delousing gas...

Gilbert Martin|8.12.09 @ 5:32PM|#

"People that BLAME people for having heart attacks."

Whether someone is to blame for some predicament that befalls them or not has no bearing on whether any unrelated third party (i.e all us taxpayers) should be obligated to bail them out.

Alice Bowie|8.12.09 @ 5:45PM|#

Gilbert Martin,

This is my opinion. My opinion is that we all (i.e all us taxpayers) should pay for the people who can't. And that is the way our society is structured today. We all contribute in hope that when we fall, the collective will pay for those few.

This model has broght many people in america out of extreme poverty...Particularly black people. Yes, the entire southern part objected to helping these people. They're attitude is the EXACT ATTITUDE shared by libertarians/conservatives today:

"Just because you was born to a nigger family doesn't make it my fault. I was born to a wealthly white family...and it's none of your business where our wealth came from...you can continue living in that shack and starve to death"

Joe M|8.12.09 @ 5:51PM|#

Sorry, Alice, someone already gave the answer "racist" a few hours ago. You'll have to try something else.

Sean W. Malone|8.12.09 @ 5:52PM|#

"If you have some proof that regulations are the problem I would be happy to look at it."

PWNED

Alice Bowie|8.12.09 @ 5:54PM|#

Oh I'm not screaming racism. I'm just using a rather emotional example. But it truly has nothing to do with race.

Wealthy blacks/latinos in this country have pretty much the same attitude as wealthy everone else...fuck the poor.

|8.12.09 @ 6:00PM|#

"This model has broght many people in america out of extreme poverty...Particularly black people. Yes, the entire southern part objected to helping these people. They're attitude is the EXACT ATTITUDE shared by libertarians/conservatives today"

Ah, the inevitable "healthcare freedom = racism" canard. Had to crop up sooner or later, but I confess myself disappointed that it took this long.

Alice Bowie|8.12.09 @ 6:05PM|#

Sean W. Malone,

That was a great article.

Alice Bowie|8.12.09 @ 6:06PM|#

You must admit...the Race card is the best!

Sean W. Malone|8.12.09 @ 6:09PM|#

I'm a little perplexed as to how people still don't get that we're having the wrong fucking discussion!

In any market. ANY. On planet Earth...

$5,000 (or insert other high dollar figure) for product X should tell you one things about that product.

The Supply of product X is far exceeded by the Demand for it.

In health care, this is completely and utterly irrefutable.

Hospital Beds (Alice, Neddy, Epi, etc.): Not enough, too many patients who need them.
Cancer Meds: Not enough, too many people who have cancer...
Doctors(!): Too few to see all the patients that potentially need treatment at any given time.

All of this Universal Health Care bullshit is a retarded man's game of musical chairs. Supply is limited because of government intervention, Demand has skyrocketed because of government's magical realist way of promising that everything is going to be "free", and what a fucking surprise, shit got expensive.

That's also not including the massive amount of money the United States pays for other nations' "free" health care as a result of their government systems chronic underpayments (and ours) and our completely uneven contribution to technology.

So why the fuck are we sitting here whining about people getting denied? When there's 100 people at the table and only 50 seats, guess what... some people gotta stand. The actual solutions are always going to be to find ways to massively increase supply. This won't happen with a government plan (and doesn't). That can only happen by getting rid of the barriers to market entry on providers, abandoning the idiotic union AMA & their central control of medical licensing, and allowing people to start contract freely again - waiving their right to sue for cheaper treatment and the ability to circumvent the FDA. Just to name a few things...

Stopping the vilification of the doctors, insurance companies & pharmaceutical developers who are actually providing the needed goods in play here, and possibly making every damn bit of it tax-free would be a great start too.

I keep getting frustrated by all this because people keep looking in the wrong place for solutions. We have a supply problem which has resulted in high costs and instead of figuring out ways to make it easier & more profitable for people to supply more health care, we keep doing the opposite. It's no fucking wonder that shit keeps getting more expensive.

Morton Kurzweil|8.12.09 @ 6:17PM|#

This is not the time to shout what we believe is true. Those whom we must persuade will not listen unless their facts can be discussed and shown to be too costly, undemocratic, unpatriotic, illegal, or unsound.
Loud doesn't win a debate except in preschool.
No one ever won an argument by shouting "or else".

Sean W. Malone|8.12.09 @ 6:27PM|#

"This is not the time to shout what we believe is true. Those whom we must persuade will not listen unless their facts can be discussed and shown to be too costly, undemocratic, unpatriotic, illegal, or unsound."

This has already been done over and over and over, hasn't it?

Even the CBO has roundly refuted the Dems on cost. The fact that the voice of the people doesn't even enter into the discussion at all - and when it does at lowly town hall meetings, those people are ignored or vilified, should show you how "undemocratic" this all is. Fucking over millions of Americans and likely 100s of millions of future Americans seems pretty unpatriotic. It's all very obviously against the constitution and against everything this country was founded on, thereby making it illegal and... I think all of the above makes it "unsound", no?

Alice Bowie|8.12.09 @ 7:06PM|#

Sean W. Malone,

Once again, that was a very informative article. I really liked it.

We argue about this all of the time. You can't tell people that we have a supply and demand problem when we are willing to give Israel, Africa, Latin America, Halliburton, Lockhean, etc. etc. etc. ALL THE MONEY in the World...yet you can't pay for some poor slob's health care.

Perhaps if we didn't pay $11billion per month on Iraq...I'd buy the arguement.

Alice Bowie|8.12.09 @ 7:12PM|#

oN ANY given tuesday, u turn on the discovery channel and see an American Sponsered multi-million dollar research project on the environmental impact caused on the South American Yellow Bellied Duck.

Spending money on people's health is not wasteful. If these people keep declaring bankruptcy and end up on the American Welfare Roll...it's the same shit.

Sean W. Malone|8.12.09 @ 7:34PM|#

Well... To an extent, yes you're right Alice... but I'm not talking about government funding supply.

I'm saying that government has screwed up the supply by making giving special deals to the previously big suppliers, ensconcing them while destroying any chance for new guys to join the market & compete through exceedingly expensive licensing, high taxation, price & wage controls, and maybe most importantly being the primary payer for this stuff.

It needs to get out of all that. The more government has been involved, the fewer suppliers we've gotten - this happens in every industry... More government tends to just wind up meaning more & more monopoly. I've said on here before we've gone from I think 26 flu vaccine manufacturers down to 2 in the last 50 years. Not coincidentally exactly in the same 50 year period where government involvement as primary payer & controller dominating health care has increased astronomically.

This is just how it works. The what, $25 Billion the US government may send to various countries in Foreign Aid wouldn't remotely make an improvement against the destruction in production they've pushed over the years.

Just get them out of the way entirely. Watch things get cheaper and more available. (And better).

|8.12.09 @ 8:40PM|#

Calling people racist b/c they are not supporting Obama, how original Alice. I will have to say, people are tired of that bullsh*t.

Alice Bowie|8.12.09 @ 9:05PM|#

Look Mom...I thought I made it clear...I'm not calling anyone racist.

I'm sure that 90% of the affluent blacks/latinos in this country feel the same way as the white affluent people: FUCK the POOR.

Gilbert Martin|8.12.09 @ 10:05PM|#

"Wealthy blacks/latinos in this country have pretty much the same attitude as wealthy everone else...fuck the poor."

Wrong, Alice.

The only thing that counts as "fucking the poor" (or anyone else) is actively doing something to harm them.

Refraining from doing something to help someone else doesn't count.

Re

The Angry Optimist|8.12.09 @ 10:18PM|#

Alice Bowie - giving stammering crackheads a bad name since 2007.

|8.12.09 @ 10:20PM|#

"Look Mom...I thought I made it clear...I'm not calling anyone racist"

You don't have to actually come out and say it. Simply making the comparison gets your point out loud and clear.

Alice Bowie|8.12.09 @ 10:42PM|#

Fucking the Poor and and having a fuck the poor attitude is two different things.

Gilbert Martin|8.12.09 @ 11:01PM|#

"Fucking the Poor and and having a fuck the poor attitude is two different things."

No it's not.

Since the only thing that counts as "fucking" them is actively doing something to harm them, the only attitude that counts as "fuck the poor" attitude is one of desire or willingness to actively do them harm.

Sean W. Malone|8.13.09 @ 2:23AM|#

Argh... this thing degenerated again.

Alice, there's a whole wealth of psychological research that shows one relatively clear thing related to your point:

People simply do not spend much time thinking about anyone else.

A "Fuck the Poor" attitude would presume that "affluent" people spend any time at all thinking about the poor. I can almost guarantee you that they don't. Hell, I don't and I am essentially poor.

It's always tempting to think that there's malice at work in the world and 9 times out of 10, that's just not the case. As callous as it may seem, there is no conspiracy... People who don't know you just don't give a shit about you. This may be something you find insulting, but you're not likely to change that.

At any rate, "the rich" are the ones who consistently employ the poor, with companies or directly - and the stuff that really actually fucks the poor is the policy... My question is always, "why do politicians hate the poor so much?"

But still, I maintain that even they don't "hate the poor", instead, 9/10 times, they simply want the votes of the middle class, which they tend to obtain by giving away "free" stuff, with the hard consequences paid by the poor. See: Cash for Clunkers.

Art-P.O.G.|8.13.09 @ 3:50AM|#

Sean W. Malone,

I think you're right.

|8.13.09 @ 11:33AM|#

We have a supply problem which has resulted in high costs and instead of figuring out ways to make it easier & more profitable for people to supply more health care, we keep doing the opposite. It's no fucking wonder that shit keeps getting more expensive.

This.

"Asking liberals where wages/prices come from like asking 6-year-olds where babies come from." -- Thomas Sowell

People who don't understand the problem think they can fix the problem by doing more of the same shit that caused the problem in the first place, except on a national scale.

Or are they really trying to fix it?

|8.13.09 @ 11:42AM|#

Perhaps if we didn't pay $11billion per month on Iraq...I'd buy the arguement.

So the answer to waste.. is 10 times more waste?

This is my opinion. My opinion is that we all (i.e all us taxpayers) should pay for the people who can't. And that is the way our society is structured today. We all contribute in hope that when we fall, the collective will pay for those few.

The collective will not pay. The individual will pay.. or be shot or jailed. That is fine with you. That's not fine with us.

Regardless spending more on a government program and expanding regulation will not accomplish your goal. It's economically impossible.

The current health care will mean more people die for lack of health care. You don't understand the problem and that is the real problem. That you, and most of America, are economically illiterate.

The bottom line? You good intentions will kill people. Period.

People on 'main street' are upset now because while they don't like it when your good intentions ruin something like education people rarely die from a poor education. You just ruin a few lives.

But when you ruin health care they know they will die.. and they don't like it.

Bruce Majors|8.13.09 @ 11:52AM|#

Barry Obama says no new hips for Yo Momma.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aGrKbfWkzTqc

Kant feel Pietzsche|8.13.09 @ 5:24PM|#

While the supply problem does need to be addressed, the real culprit is the demand side of the equation.

DIVORCING COST FROM DEMAND IS AN EPIC FAIL.

Here's a real world example: My 22 yo son is no longer on our health plan, which includes dental coverage, and like many young adults, has not bothered to procure his own health insurance.

He had a tooth go bad, and had been ignoring it as he knew the fix would be costly. Eventually we insisted he get the problem fixed before it affected his general health, and offered to front him the expense.

The Dentist quoted $300 to pull the tooth, and $1800 to repair it. You can guess which option he chose (back tooth, no cosmetic issues), and which option someone with full dental coverage would have chosen.

In fact, if the patient would have had full coverage, cost would not even have been brought up in the post-exam consult. It would have been "here's what we need to do to fix this", and "ok, let's do it".

|8.14.09 @ 1:42PM|#

"Canada has a dismal soviet style system that can't compare to the United States in any way, shape, or form".
Being a Canadian that has travelled extensively in the US, and found myself in hospital twice in the US, I tell you that there is very little difference in the health care provision. There is however a huge difference in the billing and insurance.

"1) If the whole purpose of this legislation is to provide medical care to people that can't afford it, then what's Medicaid for? And what will its role be going forward?"
The universality means that everyone gets medicaid, without some bureaucrat sticking his nose into your financial affairs to see if you are able to qualify. Those who are able to pay are the ones who are paying for medicaid, so why is it that they can't get it?

"2) Will everyone get the same health care that our congresspeople do, and vice versa?"
They should. Still there might still be some differentials available to some, like private at home nursing, private rooms etc.

"3) Can I get plastic surgery paid for to implant an ear on my arm like that wierd guy did a few years ago?"
Did medicaid pay for that?

"These are people being agitated into action by the right-wing propaganda mill, don't know or care about facts, and are basically scared shitless that we have "liberals" in charge,"
I am amazed at how much hay the Reps make with fear. Fear is the debilitating emotion. People that feed you fear are trying to debilitate you! Why why WHY would you let them??

|8.14.09 @ 9:05PM|#

I haven't read the whole thread, but can anyone actually blame the Dems for ridiculing the protestors? What did the Republicans do to protestors outside of the RNC convention in 2004?

perilisk|8.14.09 @ 11:10PM|#

"I don't know why there are people like you who can possibly be against providing the poor, elderly and disabled with free healthcare."

If only the U.S. had some sort of government programs to provide medical care for the elderly and medical aid to the poor! We surely are a brutal, fascist nation of cruel social darwinists.

"Cancer Meds: Not enough, too many people who have cancer..."

Are you quite sure about that, captain microeconomics? The government granted monopoly on new drugs combined with the inelastic demand of the third-party-payer+mandates system doesn't have something to do with it?

I'd like a little proof that marginal cost is the issue here. If anything, given the way that large demand both rewards economies of scale and spreads out the massive upfront costs of bringing the first unit of a drug to market, I'd say the per-unit cost is due to "too few people with cancer". Not that fewer people with cancer is a bad thing, I'm just saying.

Ratdog|8.15.09 @ 10:21AM|#

"It's a luxury to be a conservative...to be rich."

Dear Alice, if wealth is an issue for you, perhaps you should look to the bank accounts of those you trust to play you like a mindless little puppet.

"It's just mean-spirited to shit on people who are down on their luck."

Now, Alice, stop hating on others.

It may well have been sheer luck you were born an idiot, but that alone shouldn't have been your downfall, I've know plenty of idiots who live full happy and productive lives. What wasn't luck was your decision to descend when you chose to become your master's "useful idiot."

|8.16.09 @ 6:13AM|#

Emotional appeals are not supposed to be intelligent. Too bad you're not bright enough to understand that. Not that I am supporting the emotional appeal. The whole point of this entire thread is supposed to be about which side is emotionalizing the debate to drown out reasonable discourse, and as such, calm and thoughtful insights should be put forward, trying not to belittle those who seem to be too emotionally incapacitated by this issue to put their thoughts down succinctly.

Gel nails|8.19.09 @ 7:20AM|#

I'm glad to have visited your blog and good to know you! I find it interesting and informative.

Reason Magazine

Get Reason E-mail Updates!

Site comments/questions:

Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:

Editorial & Production Offices:

advertisements