A debate derailed
A Senate panel working on health care reform is removing a provision from its draft legislation that is controversial not because of what it actually says or would do but for extreme and profoundly false notions that have been spread about it.
The panel’s action is a victory of lies over truth, and marks a sad day in American politics.
In an editorial Monday, we’ll argue that health care proponents must not let lies win this vital debate.
August 14, 2009 - 10:36 AM
A panel of government-paid doctors consulting about end of life events = a death panel. And since it was so “benign” and because Palin was “lying”, the provision was removed. Yeah, that makes sense. Looks like Palin knows how to hit where it hurts for the people.
But the problem is not with this provision alone, it’s with the whole legislation HR 3200 which is designed to have government enter into healthcare in massive European-style proportions. My brother-in-law who lives in Munich, Germany, says that the healthcare system there not only rations care but also has long delays in treatment. Is that what we want here, and all for close to a nifty $1.5 – 2.0 Trillion price tag? Of course not.
No, Jim. No panel. Just individual doctors consulting with individual patients about end-of-life care and the various options available.
And, yes, Palin was lying.
And, no, the proposal is not for German-style or British-style socialized medicine – that’s another lie.
Dan,
If this legislation is so great, why don’t they dems just pass it? They have the votes.
They will pass it BobH, they are not in session right now. Hold on, it is coming.
Dan, the lies are that this plan will save us money and provide us with quality healthcare. If you are arguing that this is not Euro-style healthcare in terms of government involvement and spending, then you simply like to deny reality. Cheers.
Sandi,
I didn’t know you had changed your name to Dan!
Why didn’t they pass it before they adjourned? Isn’t that what BHO wanted and asked for?
They don’t need republican support.
BobH, do you mean you advocate only speaking when spoken too? I am willing if you are?
They would have passed it before they adjourned if they had not been so intent on getting some Republican input. They see now that was another wasted effort and will act accordingly when they return because this has gotten too big, too dishonest and too controversial to be “dropped”. It is called ‘saving face’, after the lies and distortions from the fear mongering corporate led “people” and the piling on of opportunistic Republicans braying for votes, they have no choice but to pass a bill. Your only hope and frankly it is a slim one, is that they can do something constructive under such an emotional, dishonest discussion (I fail to see the possibility, but I will grant it). Big Insurance and Big Pharma will win, we will go on losing and the politicians on both sides will claim victory over our ugly corpse. Way to go fellas!
Why did they need to get republican input? Why not just lead?
How much republican input did they get on the next SC justice? How come you don’t need input on that but you do on this?
The populace has spoken. They elected BHO and his health care plan. They elected a filibuster proof senate (not exactly, Specter sold out). democrat controlled house.
Let’s have it. If this is so great, pass it despite the will of the people……
Heh
“There are no death panels in the Bill so we will take them out.”
“I’m surprised to find gambling in this Casino”
If the provision could be applied in a negative/unintentional way then perhaps their act of removing it is good. However, removing it because Palin (of all people…sheesh) made a post on her Facebook page…really? really?!
Don’t worry and fret Raonoke Times…you know whatever provision taken out will be reinserted as part of a last minute 300 page amendment added at 3:25 am the morning of the final vote.
This bill is on life support, and the prognosis is grim.
BobH, they will pass it and it will be “despite” the Republicans, Big Insurance, Big Pharma and Conservatives, and FOR the will of the people.
You do know that the President in power gets to pick the SC nominees, right? Having experienced your “input” on the Stimulus and the Budget, why would “input” have been wanted?
I meant republican input (as in congress) not MY input. I am not that self centered.
If SC nominees don’t need bipartisan support why does health care?
BHO sumbmitted this legislation to congress and also the SC nominee to the senate. Your point?
BHO did not submit this legislation BobH..
SC Nominees don’t need bipartisan “input” (which is what you said BobH, not “support”) and she did not really get it and neither have many others.
Do I seriously have to put “collective” behind every use of “you”. I am fairly certain that if White House or Congressional advisers are blogging here, we are worse off than even BobH believes.
Henry, who are you quoting in #9 “There are no death panels in the Bill so we will take them out.”???
Please let us all discuss this issue like civilized people with the emphasis on civil. There are may different views on health care reform but please do not parrot the myths. Check the facts on web sites that are neither Republican or Democratic. One such site it Health/Action/Now.org but there are others.
As to rationed care, we already have that right here is Roanoke. I had to wait from August until Novemeber to have elective surgery because the doctor’s schedule was already filled up. If you are a senior with serious health problems and need a kidney transplant, you are not going to get it. The kidney will go to a younger, healthier person. Does this not make sense.
Thank you Lorraine for that breath of fresh and enlightened air. Sadly those on ‘the right’ cannot simply “discuss this issue like civilized people” and stick to the facts, because they will lose and losing sends them over the edge apparently.
God Bless you for trying and I agree with every word you posted, but it is a useless fight that will not stop. Defeating Obama is more important than you or anyone else needing reform and help to some folks.
I have to stop now, even I can’t take any more of this today!
BHO submitted health care reform legislation.Why is ANY republican support, input, whatever needed to pass it? Why wasn’t IT passed?
Does that simplify it more for you?
Part of the dems peoblem here is that there are too many versions of the bill out there. Sheesh!
Sandi
I am paraphrasing the Democrats.
“discuss like civilized people” = All agree with the Democrats
“don’t parrot myths” = Don’t disagree
Oh yeah. Health Action Now is really bipartisan. All the Democrat myths….er, talking points are there.
Lorraine,
Your care is not rationed. You have a busy doctor. There is a difference.
Sandi,
Hate to pop your buble but not all of the opposition is from the “right”. Dems have the votes to pass this without any support from the right at all. The problem here is that the dems don’t support this legislation either, apparently, or it would have been passed.
Right, Lorraine. The AARP’s site is “neither Republican or Democratic”. Those who call for “civil discussion” just want the other side to shut up.
http://www.breitbart.tv/06-flashback-pelosi-tells-anti-war-protesters-im-a-fan-of-disruptors/
Isn’t that just precious?
BobH, I am back, I do not know why you keep asking me questions, you don’t seem to read my answers. One more time: BHO has NOT SUBMITTED ANY LEGISLATION. He asked the Congress to work it up and told them the things he would like to see in it and not in it and the timeline he wanted it done by. They (as predictable as sunrise) started feuding and BI & BP started organizing opposition and Dems up for re-election in ’10 started backtracking and they told him they were working, but could not work it out before the recess. THEY WILL PASS HEALTH CARE REFORM, hopefully before the end of the year BECAUSE IT IS NEEDED. It is not needed by the wealthy, those well insured and those with job security but that is NOT the majority of Americans and that is what the Conservative corporate sponsored protesters need to come to grips with. You (collective) have scared the old people into activism that makes me fear for their health and confused those who are not PPJ’s into ‘glaze over’ mode. It will happen, it just will not be bi-partisan and it will be the highest stakes Obama can possibly play for. Failure is always an option and the “reform” may end up being a settled for mish mosh that ads burden and not relief (it has happened before). In that case you will get your dearest wish and Obama will be a one term President and your folks will regain control of Congress. A smart Conservative would be wishing him success with what “people do not want” as it will give you what you do want…
Jim W.,
Funny, I was ready to agree with you, until I actually followed the link. I really should know better when such “proof” comes from the right, though. I once again made the mistake of thinking I was dealing with honest conservative media sources. Forgot that there is no such thing…
Your “proof” is extremely disingenuous. Did you even watch the video?
In the video, the statement the graphic highlighted, as if it was actually an intelligent “gotcha”, was “I understand your anger.” Why doesn’t she say the same thing to the townies, you ask? Simple answer. Their anger is not understandable. It is based on a desperation born of racism for some and lies for others. When people get angry based on information that is false, then that anger is not understandable. Nice try. Next.
When she said “I’m a fan of disruptors” she was referring to political leaders/politicians “disrupting” the system, such as the example she gave of Franklin Roosevelt. Furthermore, she gave the caveat that the disruptors she was a fan of were “people who make change.” Not fools shouting down others to STOP change because they are cowards who believe lies. Nice try. Next.
In her editorial she voiced opposition to those who have no purpose other than stopping the debate. Not legitimate protesters. Her criticism, as voiced in the Washington Post editorial, was against those who have a problem, not with the legislation, but “with the facts themselves.” Nice try. Next.
Furthermore, she says “So let us not question another’s patriotism when we have this very honest debate that our country expects and deserves.”. What the townies, the insurance industry and conservative think tank plants are doing is NOT honest. They are scaring people through one of the most dishonest campaigns since the drive to war in Iraq. And doing such a thing is most definitely Un-American. Not once does she question the patriotism of people with an honest disagreement. That is clear in her editorial. Nice try.
There is a huge difference between anti-war protesters and the townies. Anti-war protesters have reliable information to back up their point of view. The townies have lies and ignorance. When the anti-war protesters shout things such as “no more funding the war”, for example, they are arguing against an existent government policy. When the townies shout things such as “keep the government’s hands off of my medicare”, they are not arguing against an existing government policy. In fact, they are not arguing against anything having to do with reality. When they shout “no death panels” they are not engaging in legitimate debate. They are arguing against something that is not in any bills, was never in any bills, and has never existed. (Except, of course, in the insurance industry) The comparison is a false one. And that video is a poor attempt at proving the charge of hypocrisy.
Considering I am not a fan of Pelosi, you almost got agreement from me. I will look closer at the evidence for your points from now on.
“Anti-war protesters have reliable information to back up their point of view. ”
Thanks for the laugh, Steve
Funny, I was ready to agree with you, until I actually followed the link. I really should know better when such “proof” comes from the right, though. I once again made the mistake of thinking I was dealing with honest conservative media sources. Forgot that there is no such thing…
Comment by SteveA — August 14, 2009 @ 8:41 pm
SteveA, was the video CGI or real. I’ve also noticed you also use bastions of conservative information sources in all your posts. At any rate, defending anything Pelosi does is a waste of your typing time anyway. We are talking about Nancy Pelosi for crying out loud…lol.
There is a huge difference between anti-war protesters and the townies. Anti-war protesters have reliable information to back up their point of view. The townies have lies and ignorance.
Comment by SteveA — August 14, 2009 @ 8:41 pm
Sigh, wrong again SteveA. At most, the “townies” have no information. Even your man the big O doesn’t know what is in this bill. Face it, the bill is doomed, and rightly so.
Also, the townies are bathed for the most part.
Henry and Jim W.,
“”Anti-war protesters have reliable information to back up their point of view. ”
Thanks for the laugh, Steve”
Well, Henry, reality is usually a good reference for one’s point of view. You should try it some time.
Good rebuttal, Jim W.
Do you folks think those responses were well thought out arguments? Just wondering…
Who was it that reminded me Nancy Pelosi, in being the Speaker of the House, is ALL of our business? No matter, I think his point was that she has some power and influence, whether you like her or not. You can certainly send her packing back to just plain old representing the folks who elect her. But you might want to try a lot more honesty than you are dealing in now. But, what do I know about elections? You have not really derailed the debate, you have become the debate and you are looking a little peaked. I cannot pity you, but I am enjoying the spectacle. FYI, not for nothing, but I cannot resist pointing out how useless Limbaugh and his highly rated ilk was to your side in the election of ’08 and yet you seem to be “doubling down”. Good luck with that.
Jim W.,
Sigh.
“The townies have lies and ignorance.
Comment by SteveA — August 14, 2009 @ 8:41 p…
…At most, the “townies” have no information…
Comment by Jim W. — August 14, 2009 @ 9:11 pm”
Well that would be ignorance, now wouldn’t it?
Jim W.,
And please share with the class when I have been wrong, nevermind wrong “again”?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/16/magazine/16lives-t.html?ref=magazin
A story of the horrors of being forced to avail oneself of dread “socialized medicine”. After reading this I can see why the Foxbots are resisting Obama so vociferously on this issue. Surely no American should have to endure what this American couple did in a French hospital.
Oh, wow. A 2 a.m. Discharge. How long did they wait? 12 hours? $225. A small price to pay when somebody else foots the bill and your country has Depression-type unemployment numbers year after year.
To be honest with all posters here, I am not against this bill because of any of the death panel discussion or protestors at all.
I just don’t want the govenment to get any bigger than it already is. We can’t support it now for crying out loud.
I don’t need hysterics from either side. How can we even be talking about funding a health care plan when we have a 1.3 trillion dollar deficit?
Sheesh!
Bob there are two kinds of people in the US. Those who know the system is bad already and those who fear it will get bad very soon.
(What goes into your definition of “bad” is a diff discussion)
The question remaining is what to do about it.
In the absence of the Republicans pushing a “pro business” solution during all the time they controlled Congress and even the White House… we are left with what the Democrats can get passed in 2009. It is no more complicated than that: you have sown this seed even if you didn’t intend to.
But if the Republicans and the small government folks and all the other naysayers can’t offer a real alternative that actually makes sense on the face of it and do so right the heck NOW!… well, you will get the crop that you have sown and won’t have anyone else but your selves to blame for it.
Want to know whats worse? If it doesn’t work out you will still get the blame for not acting responsibly when you had the opportunity… not the Democrats for enacting “the only legislation that could get passed”.
Oh, wow. A 2 a.m. Discharge. How long did they wait? 12 hours? $225. A small price to pay when somebody else foots the bill and your country has Depression-type unemployment numbers year after year.
Comment by Suzie — August 15, 2009 @ 10:04 am
Yes Suzie..I’m sure in the US they could have been discharged at 6am for the low, low price of $20,225 or so.Some expensive 4 hours.
All this piece does is show what a farce each and every histrionic argument against social health is. Mainly from people with little – if indeed any – worthwhile information and certainly none first hand like this writer.
Kristen, You don’t seem to understand that somebody is paying for that person’s health care over and above the $225. This is how liberals view everything. “Somebody else is paying; I got mine, so what’s the problem?”
“… not the Democrats for enacting “the only legislation that could get passed”.”
One little flaw with this theory. The Democrats hold a majority in both houses of Congress. If this issue were as purely partisan as you portray it, the Democrats should be able to pass any legislation they want. The problem is that many Democrats also recognize that the proposed legislation is a bad idea. You can cry about Republican obstructionists all you want, people can blow smoke and try to divert attention by whining about how it’s all about defeating Obama, but if this legislation fails to pass, the Democrats will have to look within their own ranks if they want to lay blame.
Wow, Bob!
“We can’t support it now for crying out loud.
How can we even be talking about funding a health care plan when we have a 1.3 trillion dollar deficit?”
No, but I will bet that you support the so called ‘free market supply side economics’ that brought us to the point that we need a health care plan and can not afford it, though. News flash for Ronald Reagan! It is not good business to destroy the jobs of the people you count on to pay the bills……
Are the pro national health care folks aware the members of congress will not be participants in the “new system”. I don’t blame them I don’t want to be a participant either. What about folks like me who are completely happy with their current health care and don’t want a national option? Will I have the choice? I doubt it. The numbers don’t work anyway and the President has admitted he does not know how to pay for the plan. In order to come close to paying for itself everyone, except members of congress, will have to be participants. This is completely unfair to a large portion of our population that are content with their current coverage.
I am submitting the following post to Meriam-Webster for consideration as a new example of both irony and hypocrisy.
“Thank you Lorraine for that breath of fresh and enlightened air. Sadly those on ‘the right’ cannot simply “discuss this issue like civilized people” and stick to the facts, because they will lose and losing sends them over the edge apparently.
God Bless you for trying and I agree with every word you posted, but it is a useless fight that will not stop. Defeating Obama is more important than you or anyone else needing reform and help to some folks.”
A post bemoaning the lack of civility and productive debate and does so by pointing fingers and implicitly calling names and laying blame in a purely partisan manner. It then goes on to demean any actual concern people have with this overpriced, deficit-funded, counterproductive proposal by implying the only reason anyone would object to over a trillion dollars of deficit spending on a program that, by its drafters own admission still will not accomplish its goals, is to try to one up the President.
Yeah, that one is the epitome of bi-partisan, open-minded civility. It really should promote some meaningful dialogue.
Nice try Mr. Ramsey, I do not think that Merriam-Webster takes such long soliloquies, buy please do submit away. I doubt they will find any irony or hypocrisy, because neither is in there.
I spoke my opinion and perspective on this “debate”. If you want to defend the corporate sponsored shout downs and protests as discussion, that is your chore to tackle.
The Town Hall hijackings have disrupted the very democracy we have used to communicate with Representatives since out inception. There could have been an honest debate, there could have been meaningful discussions, there could have been efforts at consensus building but that was decried in favor of vitriol, hate filled signs and lies so stupid they are laughable.
Characterize them any way you like, the truth is and has been on display. Sore losers have decided and openly admitted that this is to be Obama’s “Waterloo” and as sad as that is, it is also telling of the mindset and the spur the rest of us needed.
There will be a health care reform bill and it will pass and it will be implemented. The only thing that remains to be seen is how much damage and Big Insurance and Big Pharma protections the Republicans can get added in and yet again then fail to support.
Diss me all you like, I do not lie, I believe every word I type and I print my name to every opinion.
“Kristen, You don’t seem to understand that somebody is paying for that person’s health care over and above the $225. This is how liberals view everything. “Somebody else is paying; I got mine, so what’s the problem?”
Comment by Suzie — August 15, 2009 @ 4:09 pm
No Suzie, what you don’t understand is that this was considered the fair market value of the services they received in light of the fact that they were American citizens and not taxpayers contributing into the system. No one else was paying. They were paying. The services they received would have likely been deep into 4 figures in the United States…after some tiresome presentation of insurance cards and endless signing off on responsibilty for the charges. And that’s only a small part of what’s wrong with our system.
“No one else was paying.”
Just taxpayers, that’s all. But they aren’t real people, I guess.
But one plus about the French system is they have enacted very strong tort-averse legal system which allows French doctors to pay very little malpractice insurance. The downside is French doctors make only about twice as much as a bartender.
No, Suzie.
You are trying to twist what she said to mean what you would like for it to mean. It does not work.
She said, “No one else was paying.”
Then you said, “Just taxpayers, that’s all. But they aren’t real people, I guess.” Nope, taxpayers were not paying. $225 was the total bill. Why is that so hard to understand? Is it because it does not make the French systyem look bad and that does not suit your agenda?
“Nope, taxpayers were not paying. $225 was the total bill. Why is that so hard to understand? Is it because it does not make the French systyem look bad and that does not suit your agenda?”
Maybe the Americans paid $225, but what makes you and Kristen think that was the total price of the procedure? It’s socialist health care. The government picked up the balance, of course. It was 2 AM, the hospital didn’t care if they gave the American a price break. It wasn’t their money.
Suzie, we know by now that you’re just going to keep repeating whatever point is it you’re trying to make regardless of all information to the contrary. Clearly you didn’t bother reading the article, you’re taking a nonsensical knee-jerk and incorrect position sheerly out of your eagerness to “disprove” the point it makes. Why bother pretending?
I think everyone is fighting back and forth without knowing the real data behind the debate. From the article, we don’t know if $220 is the real, full, fair market cost of the services. All we know is that was the amount that was billed to them. Perhaps that is the fair market price of the services rendered, maybe it’s only what they could bill and the rest of the costs are absorbed into the system and covered by taxes. We simply cannot extract one way or another what the truth is from the article. Now, if someone could dig in and determine if that is the actualy, full, and complete cost or not, then, I think the debate could actually have some footing to stand on. It almost reminds me of one of those ‘too good to be true’ moments.
Kristen, OK. You say I’m ignoring information. Let me try to understand what you are saying. This American paid $225 which was the cost of the services rendered, and there was no government subsidy to the hospital in addition to that $225. Is that correct? And if that is the case, are you saying that’s how it works for every French citizen as well? If that were the case, then it would be a total free market system and not a universal health care system. Isn’t that right?
If I am mischaracterizing your words or the situation, please set me straight.
Suzie, read the article. Then, try to process the difference between a tax-paying French citizen using the system – who has already paid taxes into it and therefore doesn’t have a co-pay – and an American citizen who pays no taxes in the EU and therefore pays the entire bill themselves.
I’m not sure why this is so complicated, unless you’re willfully refusing to make the comparison – which clearly leaves our current system on the short end of the stick.
My point exactly, Other John. Kristen is assuming $220 is the total sum, then praising the system on that basis.
Yes good point kids…maybe the whole thing was made up. And we wonder why this country can’t get off the dime on anything of value.
Kristen, OK, so you admit ONE American got a break that is not available to taxpaying French system. Glad we got that cleared up. How exactly does that show the “farce each and every histrionic argument against social health is.”
Suzie, I’m not admitting anything, other than that this entire discussion has gotten pointless and a waste of time. And yes, the arguments against socialized health are unfounded and farcical. But this is not my day to try to teach pigs to sing, so you’ll have to carry on talking to yourself.
I’m not saying that the article was false or wrong, just incomplete. If that $220 bill does represent the full, fair, complete cost of the treatment rendered, then we need to take the French system and dissect it and figure out how to make it work here, because that far and away beats the dog snot out of our system.
Kristen, there are people with an open mind and people with a closed mind. There seems to be little short of real trauma that changes that state of being for some people and it is more productive to argue with your stapler than such people IMO.
Suzie, you have not clearly articulated whatever point you seem bent on making and frankly this sentence makes no sense: “ONE American got a break that is not available to taxpaying French system” I know how important the truth and facts are to you, so please explain your point in #54. Whatever you mean, does not appear to have bearing on Kristen’s point.
You may want to denigrate the health care system in France and all of the other industrialized nations that offer health care for all, but you are using just as specious and misleading information to do so as anyone else in the thread (if indeed anyone else was doing so) and own no high horse. The facts do not bear out your argument and you are jumping on Kristen’s link and her point to a fruitless end.
Other John, You’re a smart guy. Think. Unless France’s system is free market, which we know it isn’t, there has to be taxpayer funding for procedures. I will agree there are aspects of the French system which are good, like, as Bud pointed out, a fairly strong position against medical tort liability.
Sandi, I have no idea why you can’t understand the points being made unless you don’t want to. Posts 50 and 54 sum up my point very clearly. Beyond that, I’m done trying.
Susie,
The question is not whether taxes fund France’s health system. They do. The question is whether the cost paid by the Paretskys – who, as noted in the story were only charged because they were not French taxpayers – was the full cost of the procedure or reflected some sort of subsidy.
As OJ has correctly pointed out, there is simply not enough information in the article to make that determination, though it is certainly implied that there was no subsidy.
Thanks Dan, I think you explained what I was trying to say better than I was doing. I guess that’s why you’re a newspaper guy and I’m an engineer!
And Suzie, I understand completely what you’re saying. If only the article had more information, we’d know for sure one way or the other.
OK so maybe I am the only one who did not get: “ONE American got a break that is not available to taxpaying French system” and you are free to kick and run, but please do not call what you have been doing “trying”.
Of course the French and every other country with national health care, pays for it with taxes and controls (so will we) there is no other way. Was there some argument that they did not? I find it funny that the “freedom fries” folks keep mentioning France as a model these days.
This certainly can’t be good: ‘According to the leaked document, Vancouver Coastal — which oversees the budget for Vancouver General and St. Paul’s hospitals, among other health-care facilities — is looking to close nearly a quarter of its operating rooms starting in September and to cut 6,250 surgeries, including 24 per cent of cases scheduled from September to March and 10 per cent of all medically necessary elective procedures this fiscal year.’
http://www.vancouversun.com/story_print.html?id=1878506&sponsor
Looks like Canada is sending a stimulus package to the Seattle area, I wonder how many border-crossers there will be for folks fed up with wait lists or having their scheduled surgeries cancelled…if they go through with the plan. I hope we’re not aiming for a Canadian system, there are far too many examples of the problems there, they seem to be even more problematic than our own.
According to the WHO’s ranking of health care systems, France is number one while the U.S. is number 37. Make of that what you will.
What criterion does the WHO use in maiking their rankings, and does that take into account the financial stability of each country’s system? Certainly an interesting stat though.
That explains all the Americans flying to France to get treated.
Oe maybe France doesn’t have the crack baby problem. Maybe we should outlaw crack cocaine.
I suspect the World Health Organization will be tarred as commie-sympathizing American-hating proto-terrorists. Their rankings will not have anything to do with our actual comparative health care systems.
Yes Henry. Crack babies are why our health care system blows.
I’m not sure what the WHO’s rankings are based on, and according to their website they stopped updating the list after the year 2000. There is a link you can click on for more details but that particular chart doesn’t mean much to me.
Here’s a link I found of some interest. http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-healthcare.htm. I know nothing about the political persuasion of the writer of this article, but there are some interesting points made, I thought.
I know the U.S. health care system needs a major overhaul (we’re number 37 for pete’s sake), I’m not sure whether the bill currently being debated is the right answer or not.
I won’t characterize them that way, but Kristen, I suspect many will. I think it’s obligated that some people do, they’re a part of the UN after all, and everything about the UN is ‘the devil’ to quote Mama Boucher from The Waterboy.
Dan and Other John,
If there is no government subsidy, it would mean any Frenchman could get X-rays, an EKG, 10 hours in the emergency room (quite a selling point), a doctor, a cardiologist, technicians, nurses, and the surly gatekeeper for $220. For such a low amount why wouldn’t everybody pay directly? Why have government involvement at all? Think about it, guys.
Sandi,
“I find it funny that the “freedom fries” folks keep mentioning France as a model these days.”
Kristen is a “freedom fries” person? Uh, OK.
It sounds like WHO is endorsing drastic tort reform, since it rates a anti-tort country like France #1. That would drop out costs 25% overnight. Would you libs be fine with that? Bet not.
“I suspect the World Health Organization will be tarred as commie-sympathizing American-hating proto-terrorists”
Truth hurts.
I’m definitely suspecting a subsidy Suzie, I just can’t confirm it. Sort of like other things that we all suspect to be there, but can’t prove or disprove. We can all just guess without facts to verify though…but I am doubting that $220 actually buys all of those services straight up.
That would drop out costs 25% overnight. Would you libs be fine with that? Bet not.
Comment by Suzie — August 18, 2009 @ 1:44 pm
You have no proof of this, because proof of this doesn’t exist. To assume that 25% of medical costs are rooted in malpractice insurance is laughable.
Tort reform has been way overblown by national conservatives who usually lie about it. When Bush was spreading his fear mongering about doctors leaving the profession because of insurance rates (and they should be let of the hook, why?) the only example he was able to put forward was a doctor with such a horrible record of negligent and incompetent behavior, he was run out of business and had his license revoked.
The lies are widespread and the conservative claims have been debunked again and again – http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cache%3ADCbDrt0ay-EJ%3Awww.citizen.org%2Fdocuments%2FBush_Disinformation_Campaign.pdf+medical+liability+bush+doctor+example&hl=en&gl=us&pli=1
And – http://www.saynotocaps.org/news/bush_vs_the_truth.htm
Conservatives use tort reform all the time as just another way to prevent people who are victims from hurting corporate profits, their only concern.
Steve I’ve posted several sources that show how this nonsense about skyrocketing medical costs being driven by “frivolous malpractice awards” has no basis in reality. These sources are ignored, as yours will be.
Henry #73…you never disappoint.
I think the cost of engineering projects is too high because of the outrageous insurance costs imposed upon the industry. We need to limit lawsuits against negligent engineers who design bridges that fail, because the price of the insurance is driving up the costs of building a bridge. On second thought, the logic doesn’t make too much sense on that either. Maybe there is some level of impact, but 25% seems doubtful.
Kristen,
A whole lot of evidence seems to be ignored or tossed aside in favor of mere anecdotal evidence unfortunately. And when an argument is lost, the thread is simply abandoned or the subject no longer commented on. Too bad an informed debate doesn’t seem possible.
Wow. You leftwingers abandoned the French health care system faster than grease jumps off a frying pan. LOL. All somebody had to do was mention tort reform. The one plus the French system has going for it, is the very part you people don’t like. How typical.
“You have no proof of this, because proof of this doesn’t exist. To assume that 25% of medical costs are rooted in malpractice insurance is laughable.” — Kristen
It isn’t just the malpractice suits averted or the insurance, it’s the endless battery of unnecessary tests and procedures doctors feel they have to give to avoid getting sued. At least one quarter of the unnecessary stuff could be dropped.
So here’s the million-dollar question: Or should I say trillion dollar question? The World Health Organization rates a system #1 that doesn’t permit many lawsuits, and the Boston Globe also counts that trait as a strength, why won’t you liberals in here go for it? Are you so baldly partisan you can’t even discuss something that would have a REAL impact that has proven results and that many from both sides want? You talk about wanting a real discussion and cooperation. Well, here’s your chance.
We all know the real reason Democrats won’t even touch tort-reform, don’t we? All those loyal trial lawyers wouldn’t be able to line their greedy pockets, and we just couldn’t have that, could we?
Ah here we go. Looks like my instincts on the 25% figure were right.
“An authoritative Massachusetts Medical Society study found that five out of six doctors admitted they order tests, procedures and referrals — amounting to about 25 percent of the total — solely as protection from lawsuits.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/06/AR2009080602933.html
Imagine if one simple law stopping these sponging trial lawyer crooks could reduce the load by 25% mostly by eliminating all these unnecessary tests and procedures. Why would you liberals oppose this?
Do that, Suzie, and the number of deaths from malpractice might go from 200,000 to 400,000 a year.
The problem isn’t too many lawsuits. The problem is a few bad docs and the unwillingness of good docs to turn them in. If they policed themselves, maybe we could implement “tort reform” without endangering patients.
“Do that, Suzie, and the number of deaths from malpractice might go from 200,000 to 400,000 a year.”
Wow, Dan. Are those kinds of huge numbers happening in France? Must not be a problem there if France has WHO’s number one ranking.
Hey Suzie, I know you disregard facts but I like to make sure others have them: Try this one: http://centerjd.org/air/pr/Quotes.pdf
“Industry Insiders Admit – And History Shows:
Tort Reform Will Not Lower Insurance Rates”
or this: http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/mahabarbara/2009/06/seducing-the-states-with-tort.php
“Tort reform has not lowered health care costs in a single state”
I know that won’t be enough so here:
http://open.salon.com/blog/mahabarbara/2009/05/06/the_truth_about_health_care_and_part_ii
http://open.salon.com/blog/john_walker/2009/08/05/tort_reform_the_rich_get_richer
And finally: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_malpractice
“Malpractice has both direct and indirect costs, including “defensive medicine.” Studies place the direct and indirect costs of malpractice between 5% and 10% of total U.S. medical costs, as described below:[20]
About 10 percent of the cost of medical services is linked to malpractice lawsuits and more intensive diagnostic testing due to defensive medicine, according to a January 2006 report prepared by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP for the insurers’ group America’s Health Insurance Plans…The figures were taken from a March 2003 study by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that estimated the direct cost of medical malpractice was 2 percent of the nation’s health-care spending and said defensive medical practices accounted for 5 percent to 9 percent of the overall expense.”
So you want us to leave health care reform alone because only 30% are discontent and only 15% (using your bogus numbers BTW) do not have insurance but tort reform in necessary for less than 10% of the overall costs? Fascinating!!
I’d rather have the French medical system and the US legal system than the US medical system and the French legal system.
Based on that i say lets steal the best ideas on things from wherever we find them and just call it out own.
Sandi,
Let’s see. Your links include an anti-insurance group, two far-left blogs, and wiki. Impeccable sourcing. None of them address the true value of tort reform which would lighten the caseload of hospitals by 25% eliminating wasteful tests and procedures. Wiki is not normally what one would consider the go-to source, but considering your others, it’s the most reliable mentioed. Wiki says the total cost savings would be 10%. My source says 12%. Either way, it’s an enormous load to take off the system, and isn’t every dollar saved, worthwhile? Unless, of course, reducing costs isn’t your goal.
I can’t believe this total about face on you leftwingers’ role model, France. Just a few hours ago, you people were praising France to the highest pinnacle. Now you’re trashing their system because of it’s tort unfriendliness. Both Both unbelievable and comical! Both hypocritical and predictable!
Suzie, you cite one book by one author and then make fun of someone else’s sources? Unbelievable. I have no problem with tort reform done right, but I will not argue for it with bogus 25% numbers as you attempted to do. Sure 10%, 12% and even an imagined 20% matters, but it is NOT CRIPPLING the system or anything close to it. Some doctors are more cautious and some are less competent so the testing component is dishonest as well in the big picture. When you want to discuss anything using real facts or even an honest opinion we can do that. You are just as blindly partisan and vitriolic as anyone on this site and you do not want to discuss the various issues, you only want to denigrate what you do not like and advocate with false information. If you think the system is without fault, defend it.
“Must not be a problem there if France has WHO’s number one ranking.”
No, they don’t. I’ve already proven that France’s system is superior to ours. But then…if you check the WHO list, you’ll find that almost EVERYONE’S system is superior to ours. I didn’t see anyone back off the the French system ( as you claim). In fact, I’d love to see a couple of real sources (Foxblogs don’t count!) that support your “instinct” on how France handles malpractice litigation.
Interesting debate on this. I’m generally for some level of reform on lawsuits because I hate how litigation-happy we are as a nation. We sue fast food restaurants if we spill hot coffee on ourselves, we sue gun makers if a relative gets shot by a gang member, we sue some blogger we’ve never met because they say something that we take personally…good grief. Whatever happened to taking responsibility for one’s own mistakes and actually finding the right folks at fault? Ok, now with doctors, perhaps the tests ordered would come down a lot of they weren;t run as a CYA to prevent a potential suit. Honestly, a lot of things are done in any industry just for that reason. At a former employer, I made a decision that I felt was very sound and logoical, and was based in engineering precedence and met all the state and federal requirements. My boss looked at it and asked quite simply ” if a wreck occured and you got broguth in to court to defend this position, would you be able to do so adequately?” So, because of the lawsuit factor, I changed my decision and re-wrote a weeks worth of work and went against engineering practice and guidance to do a CYA, because it was my boss who was signing off on the report. I’m quite sure that happens a lot with doctors, so I could see some level of savings there, but we would have to be very careful not to eliminate any way to redress a medical SNAFU by an incompetent doctor.
Suzie, you cite one book by one author and then make fun of someone else’s sources?
One link? Let’s see. There was the study showing Republicans were far more generous than Democrats, the study showing Red States are far more generous than Blue States, and the study showing religious people are far more religious than non-religious. You were free to try show evidence to the contrary, and you couldn’t do it. Your side lost on every count.
Kristen:
“Must not be a problem there if France has WHO’s number one ranking.”–Suzie
“No, they don’t. I’ve already proven that France’s system is superior to ours.” –Kristen
Huh?
“I didn’t see anyone back off the the French system”
All the people slamming tort-reform are bashing the French system.
“In fact, I’d love to see a couple of real sources (Foxblogs don’t count!) that support your “instinct” on how France handles malpractice litigation.”
Bud posted on that very topic on another thread. Didn’t you read “Bad Bud’s Health Care Solutions?
Suzie you take sophistry to a new level. You cited no such thing as three sources for your recycling of Mr. Brooks’ premise and it has been repeatedly refuted with facts so one can only wonder at this “If I can’t see you, you can’t see me” method of debate.
No one is slamming tort reform either. We have almost all agreed that it can be part of the final program but we certainly disagree that it is the strangle on the business that you keep claiming.
You prove over and over that all you want to do is argue. Discussion and debate might be hard but useless baiting and insulting is not gaining you any ground either.
Suzie,
Actually you only provided three links, not links to three studies. Two of the links discussed just the one source of Arthur Brooks’ book. I suggest you go back to that thread. Your “facts” and assumptions have been dealt with and there remain some uncomfortable truths for you to accept.
“There was the study showing Republicans were far more generous than Democrats” – Arthur Brooks’ book
“the study showing Red States are far more generous than Blue States” – Study by the Catalogue for Philanthropy. It also said this – “However 82% of New Englanders give, whereas only 65% give of those among the Southeast and Gulf Coast.”. Hey, it’s your link.
“and the study showing religious people are far more religious than non-religious” – same book by Arthur Brooks
“You were free to try show evidence to the contrary, and you couldn’t do it.” – You still seem to think that you actually won that debate. You didn’t, Suzie. I have dealt with the sources for both of your links and shown you contradictory evidence from more than two sources that refutes your feeling of moral superiority.
“Your side lost on every count.” – Sorry, Suzie. That is simply not true. Like I said, your flawed assumptions have been dealt with. You need to reread the thread – http://blogs.roanoke.com/rtblogs/roundtable/2009/08/14/tarbutton-health-care-doesnt-need-more-government-involvement/#comments
Also, you need to concede that Democrats are better for the economy and the national debt.
Or you can just keep ignoring reality as you have been doing…
Suzie,
“and the study showing religious people are far more religious than non-religious” – I have assumed that you meant to say that they were far more generous.
…seems pretty obvious to me…
Sandi and Steve,
Both of you say you’ve refuted Brooks’ claims with facts. Show the posts in which you’ve done that.
Bud posted on that very topic on another thread. Didn’t you read “Bad Bud’s Health Care Solutions?
Comment by Suzie — August 18, 2009 @ 9:35 pm
So…Bud is your source on French tort law?
http://www.electoral-math.com/archive/200504/20050420.html
So, since no one else could do it I guess, I went and found a source on the management of malpractice suits in France.
The system, which reorganized in 2002, is not “anti tort”. The method for bringing a claim is now slightly different, but that’s it.
“Even so, because the burden of proof is much lower than it is in the US, the processing time is shorter, and there patient needs to commit less time to the process, the number of claims is generally much, much higher, though payouts are smaller. Since you don’t have to go through the agony of dealing with the legal system, you get a bit of money for your trouble and then get sent on your way.”
So much for the “France is anti tort” fantasy. What else ya got Suzie?
You obviously did not read these the first time, but I am not unhappy to repeat the refutations:
Suzie #29: FTA #1 “Most of the difference in giving among conservatives and liberals gets back to religion. Religious liberals give nearly as much as religious conservatives, Mr. Brooks found. And secular conservatives are even less generous than secular liberals.”
“Religious people who are generous can be used by the political right to justify government not playing its rightful role,” Mr. Wallis says. “The right should not use our generosity to justify their irresponsibility.”
Again you have chosen to extrapolate the info from the articles that suits your agenda and ignore anything that does not.
I will not bother with researching any specific refutations because I agree with the premise that religion is a bigger indicator of giving than political leanings and as Will noted, MOST “giving” is not recorded as a political choice. Much large philanthropic “giving” is tax incentive and write off based targeted giving (i.e. the art museum instead of the United Way) as well and since the immensely wealthy as a group are majority Republican you still have a numerical comparison not really a moral one.
Anyone with a brain has figured out that compassionate conservative is a political creation to attempt to convince people that private giving can meet the needs in our society and even if EVERY Liberal and EVERY Conservative in this country gave the full 10% tithe only in dollars, it would still not be enough and therefore the government (the collective us) still has to make up the difference to ensure a decent quality of life.
It is sad that Mr. Brooks and folks like you have chosen to market his research and his book as the proof of your manifesto, because it precludes a large number of people from attempting to read it as it appears to be just more political garbage to serve an agenda. He had a choice and he made it as have you.
Believe what you want, espouse what you want, but you only change minds and hearts with credibility.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — August 14, 2009 @ 7:02 pm
Suzie, the bottom line is that your links do not “prove” your premise. Your point that Republicans are more generous than Democrats is not provable with what you offered, PERIOD. Conservatives give to the charities of their choice as do Liberals. Mr. Brooks is one source and I still believe that you are misrepresenting the “facts” he used in that book. Statistically it simply is not possible to quantify all giving nor to track it back and determine by whom it was given. There are so many ways to give and much of that is unaccounted for by your Mr. Brooks. You premise is not proven, but that is never relevant to you, only to the rest of us.
I do not believe I have “demonized” Conservatives one iota more than you have demonized Liberals so we remain even.
The energy and denial it must take to remain a Conservative sure seems like more work than is rewarded to me. You keep up that “us” vs “them” attitude all you want, but the truth is still all that will really matter in the end. When we stand before God for judgment or when the history has been written. In the end, we will have to answer for the side we choose.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — August 17, 2009 @ 10:06 am
“…the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics’ latest survey of consumer expenditure found that the poorest fifth of America’s households contributed an average of 4.3 percent of their incomes to charitable organizations in 2007. The richest fifth gave at less than half that rate, 2.1 percent.”
I understand very well the difference between dollar amount and percentage. And I’d say this stat alone renders moot the “rich conservatives are more charitable” canard. Considering poor people can’t benefit from tax deductions ( which devalue the impact of the donations of the more wealthy to their pocketbook), I’d say it makes the poor even MORE generous comparatively.
Comment by Kristen — August 17, 2009 @ 10:45 am
Suzie,
“I’m the only one here providing evidence.” – Well, that is a flat out lie.
“It’s a shame you discount the evidence because you don’t like the results. No matter how you slice it, you people who talk the talk aren’t the ones doing the giving. Liberals in every case, give less to charity, even non-religious charity.” – Wrong, Suzie. Perhaps if you responded to my simple questions instead of avoiding answers you don’t like, you would have a point.
“with the ample overwhelming proof I’ve provided” – LOL. Really, Suzie? The information you are relying on, from one rightist source, mind you, is suspect.
“”Brooks says he started the book as an academic treatise, then tightened the documentation and punched up the prose when his colleagues and editor convinced him it would sell better and generate more discussion if he did. To make his point forcefully, Brooks admits he cut out a lot of qualifying information.”
“”Although the liberal v. conservative split is the hook for the book, the data are not nearly as stark as the hype surrounding the book might indicate.”
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_C._Brooks#cite_note-Beliefnet-1
And from a Conservative critic -
“At the AEI forum, Alan Abramson, director of the philanthropy program of the Aspen Institute, said that one should treat Brooks’s sweeping conclusions with caution, given the “softness of the data” on charity in general. (He noted that Brooks himself concedes that we don’t even know with certainty whether ***50 percent or 80 percent*** [a bit of a difference wouldn't you say?]*** of adult Americans donate to charity.)”
- http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2006/12/10/who_gives/
Also, the information he used to draw his own faulty conclusions is suspect itself -
“One flaw in studying itemized charitable deductions: An estimated 70 percent of taxpayers don’t itemize, so what most of the population gives to charity is unknown. But the Generosity Index’s logic is so flawed that the index is almost meaningless anyway. For example, Massachusetts could rank first both in average income and average charitable deduction with, say, $100,000 in each. But subtracting 1 from 1 leaves you a generosity gap of zero; we would still trail Mississippi, despite giving all our money away.
The Generosity Index also fails to account for differences in living costs. Some researchers suggest that higher wages in Massachusetts compared with the US average make up for the higher cost of living here. But others say cost of living is not just a question of what people “need” to spend but what they do in fact spend on various items — a reflection of both raw economics and of culture and community values.
“If you use, say, average cost of housing in an area, rather than the cost of housing to an individual, you end up with entirely different numbers,” explains BC’s Schervish, who is trying to account for cost of living in a study of charitable giving he plans to release early next year.”
“To be fair, one of the first people to admit the shortcomings of the Generosity Index is the creator of the index himself: George McCully, president of the Catalog for Philanthropy. He insists he only wanted to create a tool that drew attention to patterns of charitable donations and, ideally, prodded people to give more.”
- http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2004/12/19/scrooged/
He includes religious giving. Like church tithing. And gullible seniors giving their Social Security checks to immoral lying hucksters like Pat Robertson and his ilk.
When seniors give their Social Security checks to religious thieves that means that the conservative “goodness” is a socialist government run program.
As far as conservative “morality” goes, would that giving include “charities” such as these –
“In his own way, disgraced super-lobbyist Jack Abramoff engaged in many charitable endeavors over the course of his decade-long career as a Washington insider.
There was the time he laundered money through a religious group’s accounts to try to bribe a congressional aide. He diverted funds from a youth athletic foundation to bankroll a golf junket for a congressman and to bolster the bank account of his Washington restaurant. He used two other nonprofits to line his own pockets with millions of dollars defrauded from clients.
Charities are supposed to advance the public interest, which is why they aren’t taxed. But Abramoff, by his own admission, used them to evade taxes, enrich himself and bribe public officials, according to a plea agreement he signed with federal prosecutors in January.”
“They used a network of charities and other nonprofits — some existing, some they created — to forge a full-service influence-peddling operation. They include:
* The Capital Athletic Foundation, created by Abramoff as a sports-oriented youth charity. He funded it with millions improperly diverted from his lobbying clients and treated it as his “personal piggy bank,” a lawmaker said, spending money on pet projects that had nothing to do with its stated purpose.
* The American International Center, a bogus “international think tank” at a beach house near Rehoboth Beach, Del. Abramoff and Scanlon used the center to collect millions from their lobbying clients and then send it to their personal bank accounts.
* Toward Tradition, a nonprofit in Mercer Island, Wash., that promotes “traditional Judeo Christian values” and was used to help Abramoff funnel an alleged $50,000 bribe of an aide to DeLay.
* The National Center for Public Policy Research in Washington, an obscure conservative organization that Abramoff used to defraud an Indian tribe and an offshore gaming alliance of at least $2 million for his and Scanlon’s personal enrichment.”
- http://articles.latimes.com/2006/feb/11/nation/na-charities11
Or this one – Coleman’s Step Into World Peace
“…some six years later the foundation has raised and spent about $100,000 but has done, as far as I can tell, virtually nothing to honor the victims of 9/11 or to “remind the world…that it cannot be allowed to happen again.”
So what exactly is the purpose of this IRS-approved non-profit organization?”
- http://www.harpers.org/archive/2009/05/hbc-90005054
Or how about this one -
“Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist’s
AIDS charity paid nearly a half-million dollars in consulting fees to members of his political inner circle, according to tax returns providing the first financial accounting of the presidential hopeful’s nonprofit.
The returns for World of Hope Inc., obtained by The Associated Press, also show the charity raised the lion’s share of its $4.4 million from just 18 sources. They gave between $97,950 and $267,735 each to help fund Frist’s efforts to fight AIDS.
…The donors included several corporations with frequent business before Congress, such as insurer Blue Cross/Blue Shield, manufacturer 3M, drug maker Eli Lilly and the Goldman Sachs investment firm.”
- http://web.archive.org/web/20051230195335/http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051217/ap_on_go_co/frist_charity
Or how about this -
“For $50,000, a donor will get luxury box seats at the 2004 Republican convention, tickets to Broadway shows and spots in an upscale golf tournament.
A half-million dollars will buy all of that, plus a New York cruise and two dinners with House Majority Leader Tom Delay of Texas.
That’s the pitch DeLay is making in a new charity brochure that is advertising “Donor Packages” for next summer’s New York convention, reports CBS News Correspondent Bob Orr.
DeLay’s “Celebrations for Children” brochure says the money raised will go to charities. A spokesman for DeLay concedes part of the proceeds will be used to pay for the donors’ entertainment, but says in the end it’s all about helping children.”
- http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/14/politics/main583606.shtml
Not good enough? Okay -
“Nearly every day there has been a revelation about a new purported charity or foundation established by or controlled by a member of Congress, in addition to DeLay’s own eponymous foundation, ostensibly established by the former House Majority Leader and his wife to create a home for foster children, but known for its lavish “Fantasy Island” golf fundraisers involving members of Congress, lobbyists, and special interests operating without public disclosure. Among the leading foundations and charities linked to members of Congress are:
*the Ted Stevens Foundation, operated by the Senate’s Appropriations Committee chairperson which attracts donations from a number of special interests with major business interests in front of that all-powerful committee;
…
*and most recently, Rick Santorum’s Operation Good Neighbor Foundation, with contributors including the bank that gave the senator a remarkably below market mortgage for his Virginia home, and managing to spend 60% of its charitable intake not on grants and programs, but on staff engaged in operations, and fundraising, not grantmaking–staff including Santorum campaign aides.”
- http://www.dmiblog.com/archives/2006/04/congressional_use_of_charities.html
Still think you’re the only one providing evidence? I guess I need more then. Such as this -
“In 1984, then Colorado Republican Party Chairman Bo Callaway set up a charitable corporation ostensibly to fund speech contests for Colorado high school students. The board of the tax-exempt, and therefore supposedly nonpartisan, entity was made up of state GOP heavyweights: Callaway, party vice-chair Mindy Meiklejohn, party secretary Carol Beam, party executive director Kay Riddle and the state’s National Republican Committee representative, Hal Krause.
Now, as federal investigations shed increasing light on the actions of House Speaker Newt Gingrich in his amassing of troops for the 1994 Republican “revolution,” Westword has learned that Callaway’s charity–officially called the Abraham Lincoln Opportunity Foundation (ALOF)–was actually used as a conduit for money from the national Republican political action committee GOPAC (to which donations are not tax-deductible).”
- http://www.westword.com/1995-12-20/news/newt-s-local-link/
And this -
“A top adviser to former House Whip Tom DeLay received more than a third of all the money collected by the U.S. Family Network, a nonprofit organization the adviser created to promote a pro-family political agenda in Congress, according to the group’s accounting records. ”
- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/25/AR2006032501166.html
Like everything else conservatives touch, charities are used by them to enrich themselves, their friends, and get power. Conservatives are in no way better people and the crack about “opening your heart to the poor” is absurd coming from a conservative who supports politicians that fight as hard as possible to stop any aid to the poor. And they always have.
And, gosh, Suzie, I should consider that you have accepted that Democrats are better for the economy and the national debt, right? Considering that you are unable to refute the evidence. For some reason, you keep avoiding it.
Comment by SteveA — August 18, 2009 @ 1:26 pm
Sandi,
Nice. Bet it still will have no effect, I’d bet. In doing some googling on this topic, I noticed that Brooks’ book is referenced all over by conservatives who use it, ineffectually, to feel morally superior. This one book, easily refuted as we have seen, is the only thing they can use as a shield against criticism of their vicious behavior and goals. It doesn’t work. Just like the “compassionate” before conservative changes nothing about the effects of their policies on the poor and middle class.
And isn’t it odd that as well as ignoring the abundant evidence put together in your single post there, the issue of the Democrats being better for the economy and national debt has been completely ignored. Not refuted at all. Just ignored. Uncomfortable, I guess.
Illusions must require some serious intellectual compartmentalization. When my sister and I were kids, she used to separate the food on her plate. No one specific food could touch another. She has since outgrown that behavior. Must be similar.
“So much for the “France is anti tort” fantasy. What else ya got Suzie?”
“Practice liability is greatly diminished by a tort-averse legal system”
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/08/11/frances_model_healthcare_system/
I love seeing liberals having contort themselves into disagreeing with a far-left publication like the Globe. This French tort thing has them doing pretzels.
Thanks Suzie, that was one of the best arguments for health care reform and the “French Model”, I have ever read. Sounds great to me. Not nearly ‘as billed’, but great!
FYI, apparently France has only had “tort reform” since 2002 and the taxpayer funded awards are not data we can actually “compare” yet anyway.
Suzie,
If we were to adopt the French system I’d be willing to adopt their medical liability system as well. Or were you just taking one point out of context to back up your ideology?
Did you consider the reasons why they have such a system given by the op-ed author? For instance:
“…the average American physician earns more than five times the average US wage while the average French physician makes only about two times the average earnings of his or her compatriots.”
So should the government reduce their pay?
“…medical schools, although extremely competitive to enter, are tuition-free.”
I’m glad we agree on free college and post-graduate education.
“The French system strongly discourages the kind of experience rating that occurs in the United States, making it more difficult for insurers to deny coverage for preexisting conditions or to those who are not in good health.”
So you agree with the Democrats about that one?
As far as that “tort-averse” system goes (from Kristen’s link):
“Under the French implementation of the Scandinavian system, wronged patients bring claims before their regions’ government-appointed review board which is responsible for determining if compensation is in order and, if so, how much. For a patient to get paid, the board does not have to find the doctor at fault, or that medical negligence caused whatever pain and suffering the patient is experiencing. Money for patient relief comes from a national compensation fund, which presumably gets its cash either from a dedicated tax insurance premium placed on doctors and hospitals, or from general fund revenues. The closest analogy to this sort of system in the United States would be workers’ compensation funds that many states run. The goal of such systems is not to find fault or establish causation as much as it is to provide a bit of compensation to workers who are injured on the job.”
So you want a government-appointed review board?
The author does not seem to make the assumption that this liability system, which he says is responsible for the lowering of malpractice insurance premiums, would have the same effect here if implemented on its own. Capping jury awards and limiting malpractice suits has not had the promised effect on premiums or doctor availability or the price of care, as myself and others have posted proof of. And not just from one source, as the information you provided. If he has suggested that, please let me know.
Such a system dealing with medical liability, if implemented on its own in this country, would be disastrous. It would serve only the interests of the insurance companies at the expense of mere common citizens who had been wronged. But it’s advanced by conservatives so you knew that already.
Oh, yeah. Your response to the debunking of Brooks and your beloved conservatives on the economy is? Pretty disgusting behavior by the conservatives using children’s charities to enrich themselves, isn’t it?
I see Suzie didn’t bother reading my link which pretty much crushed her theory on how France is anti-tort litigation. Too bad Brooks didn’t write a book on it.
Of course, one sentence ( supported by nothing so trivial as supporting material, he might as well claim that France is anti-fois gras) fully supports the “France is anti tort” nonsense position.
Kristen,
“Too bad Brooks didn’t write a book on it. ”
LOL
“FYI, apparently France has only had “tort reform” since 2002 and the taxpayer funded awards are not data we can actually “compare” yet anyway.”
For about the 100th time, the real value of tort reform is removing all the CYA procedures and tests. Earlier in the decade, their unemployment was 11% while ours was half that. Now we’re about even; in the 9.5% range. It shows how far we have fallen when Obama has pulled us down to the numbers of a perennial laughingstock like France.
Kristen, It’s not my fault the liberal Boston Globe disagrees with your leftwing source. I still think it’s hilarious watching the left react to the disconnect: They rave about their darling liberal mecca, France, and its health care system — until they find the part they crow loudest about is rooted in conservative philosophy. Priceless.
Suzie, you need to explain that “real value” to your side of the aisle not mine. We have been on board for that reform for a long time and when it is mentioned it is turned into “Death Panels” who will say when to pull the plug on grandma and who will have what test being decided by a bureaucrat. YOUR side is the one that insists the “tort reform” is all about out of control jury verdicts which hurt great doctors and cause unaffordable insurance premiums. We know you don;t read our posts and apparently you don’t read theirs either.
The only person contorting and reacting is you. YOUR “source” was raving about the darling French System, not us. Tort Reform is not only in Conservative Philosophy anymore than patriotism is.
I agree we have been pulled low, but it was NOT Obama that did it. See “The GOP’s Misplaced Rage: http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-08-12/the-gops-misplaced-rage/full/
“Suzie, you need to explain that “real value” to your side of the aisle not mine.”
Sandi, my side has understood the value of tort reform for a long time. I am pleased to know you’re on board. Maybe we can put our voice together and get it. I would even settle for a tort system like France’s. Are you with me on that?
Suzie,
I see you didn’t answer my questions. Shocking, really.
“my side has understood the value of tort reform for a long time.” – Actually, your side has lied about it for a long time…
As I explained above, the French system of medical liability would not work here if that was the only thing done. Proof of this has been offered by Sandi, Kristen, and myself. You have not refuted it.
If you want to implement their entire system, including the changes I highlighted in their system above, then, sure, I’m with you.
Steve,
No, I support tort reform, not all those free giveaways associated with socialized medicine. It’s funny what’s going on, first you guys love France’s system, then you trash France’s system, then you try to say people are going to die due to tort reform, then when that is shot down, you pretend France isn’t tort averse at all. Watching liberals reacting to the disconnect is worth the price of admission.