Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, December 12, 2018

The coalition that fought Obamacare repeal has fragmented as the party tries to follow through on campaign promises and the united front that helped Democrats save Obamacare just a year ago is falling apart over single-payer health care.

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Time to pay the piper...

#1 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-12-10 05:50 PM | Reply

Deep-pocketed hospital, insurance and other lobbies are plotting to crush progressives' hopes of expanding the government's role in health care once they take control of the House.

Healthcare lobbyists spend FOUR TIMES more lobbying to get their way as compared to the defense lobbyists who keep the military-industrial-complex in place.

That is what ordinary Americans are up against.

#2 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2018-12-10 07:14 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 5

Deep-pocketed hospital, insurance and other lobbies are plotting to crush progressives' hopes of expanding the government's role in health care once they take control of the House.

Interesting, but not surprising they leave the "DeepDeep pocketed doctors"

AMA PRESIDENT: IT'S STILL 'NO' TO SINGLE PAYER

WASHINGTON -- A single-payer healthcare system in the U.S. would break her practice, said the president of the American Medical Association (AMA), who argued that Medicare and other government programs as currently structured simply don't pay enough."We need a payment system that the country can afford," said Barbara McAneny, MD, AMA president, and a practicing oncologist/hematologist in New Mexico.
www.healthleadersmedia.com

I forget who it was, Clownshack perhaps, people just like to do things without getting paid ......

#3 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2018-12-10 07:35 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

WASHINGTON -- A single-payer healthcare system in the U.S. would break her practice, said the president of the American Medical Association (AMA), who argued that Medicare and other government programs as currently structured simply don't pay enough."We need a payment system that the country can afford," said Barbara McAneny, MD, AMA president, and a practicing oncologist/hematologist in New Mexico.
www.healthleadersmedia.com
I forget who it was, Clownshack perhaps, people just like to do things without getting paid ......
POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS AT 2018-12-10 07:35 PM | REPLY

You mean they want people to pay the outrageous charges that hospitals and Doctors charge instead of paying for what things ACTUALLY cost.

#4 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-12-10 07:49 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"We need a payment system that the country can afford," said Barbara McAneny, MD, AMA president, and a practicing oncologist/hematologist in New Mexico.

Affording healthcare is as simple as taking the ~ $750 billion to nearly $1 trillion in annual healthcare waste that doesn't benefit patients ... and redirect it through higher reimbursement rates for primary care and geriatrics (where the greatest needs are) while lowering the reimbursement rates for all the doctor specialties where there's too many unneeded surgeries (hip and knee replacements, cardiac stents, etc.).

The savings from fewer surgeries and less aggressive patient care can then be plowed back into to US Healthcare system to pay for access to primary care (which unclogs America's ERs) and pretty much anything else that's needed.

#5 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2018-12-10 07:52 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

The AMA invented the term "Socialized Medicine."

You'd have to be ignorant of that fact, like Anrdrea, a mattress is, to not know where they stand on a public option.

#6 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-12-10 07:53 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

In Putin's Russia Medicare crushes you.

#7 | Posted by Tor at 2018-12-10 08:53 PM | Reply

is as simple as taking

#5 | POSTED BY PINCHALOAF AT 2018-12-10 07:52 PM | FLAG:

In other words, it's not simple at all.

#8 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2018-12-11 09:39 AM | Reply

That article is just another in the attempt to split Democrats by telling us we can't win. I don't believe it at all. Propaganda.

#9 | Posted by danni at 2018-12-11 01:03 PM | Reply

Consider who the OP is. Take it with a grain of salt.

#10 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2018-12-11 03:02 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

You'd have to be ignorant of that fact, like Anrdrea, a mattress is, to not know where they stand on a public option.
#6 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

You must be pretty ignorant...

How the AMA Scared Us Away From ‘Socialized Medicine' and Prepared Us For Obamacare
www.chicagomag.com

Here's a little history lesson for you kids...

A history of why the US is the only rich country without universal health care
According to Lepore, after successfully halting the reform in California, Campaigns, Inc. used a similar strategy -- this time on behalf of the American Medical Association -- to block president Truman's 1949 proposal of a public health plan.
qz.com

#11 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2018-12-11 03:52 PM | Reply

A history of why the US is the only rich country without universal health care

Apparently fearmongering by America's capitalist ruling class works wonderfully.

There was a recent proposal in California to provide healthcare for all.

It also got shut down.

California is a prime example of social democracy at work. And the rich have never been richer.

#12 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-12-11 04:02 PM | Reply

Apparently fearmongering by America's capitalist ruling class works wonderfully.

Its exactly as I stated, once we went the direction we did, its almost impossible to turn back, anything in the future will be a hack job.

I wouldn't be opposed to MedicareForAll if we were just starting.

In fact as Snoofy points out AMA invented the term "socialized medicine"; but as a positive (bet he didn't know that)...
en.wikipedia.org

There was a recent proposal in California to provide healthcare for all.

Yeah but the government is how liberals want it, all decisions are Federal.

California cannot simply decide to divert health care money spent in the state to a single-payer insurance plan of its own. Federal rules govern nearly all health-insurance coverage.

Medi-Cal -- the state's version of Medicaid, the health insurance program for low-income Americans -- covers about a third of the population. Here, the state has lots of leeway to experiment, and the federal government has tended to let that happen.

But almost everyone else gets coverage through an employer, Medicare or the individual marketplace. And in these arenas, the state has less authority.

To redirect Medicare funds, California would require a federal waiver -- something unlikely to be granted by any administration.
www.nytimes.com

#13 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2018-12-11 04:20 PM | Reply

Its exactly as I stated

Yea. We actually agree on something.

Don't let it go to your head.

;)

#14 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-12-11 04:25 PM | Reply

is as simple as taking
#5 | POSTED BY PINCHALOAF AT 2018-12-10 07:52 PM | FLAG:
In other words, it's not simple at all.
#8 | POSTED BY SITZKRIEG AT 2018-12-11 09:39 AM | REPLY | FLAG:
Doesn't understand the difference between "simple" and "easy".

#15 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2018-12-12 07:54 AM | Reply

From Andrea's link above:

"The term ["socialized medicine"] was popularized by the public relations firm Whitaker and Baxter working for the American Medical Association in 1947 to disparage President Truman's proposal for a national health care system. It was a label, at the dawn of the cold war, meant to suggest that anybody advocating universal access to health care must be a communist. And the phrase has retained its political power for six decades.[8][9]"

Ho Chi Minh, Chairman Mao and Stalin all want your to have Communist Healthcare like Medicare. Or, at least that is what the AMA would love for you to believe.

#16 | Posted by danni at 2018-12-12 08:05 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"To redirect Medicare funds, California would require a federal waiver -- something unlikely to be granted by any administration."

It is a sentence but they offered no reason for me to believe it. None.

"The phrase ‘higher taxes' is less popular than ‘single payer.'"

An increase in taxes smaller than the cost employees and employers pay now for insurance would not be a hard sell to most people.

#17 | Posted by danni at 2018-12-12 08:12 AM | Reply

what will be said THIS time on THIS thread that hasn't been said ad nauseum, 1000 times before? Jack Benny cut to the crux of the debate 75 years ago.

Benny, a notorious tightwad, is being robbed. the robber says "your money or your life, now hurry up and hand it over".......Benny says, "yeah, yeah, hold on

I'm thinking". the insurance industry says, "your money or your life". Watcha' gonna' do jack?

#18 | Posted by 1947steamer at 2018-12-12 08:25 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Both left and right citizens want medicare for all. It's the lobbyists again.

#19 | Posted by hamburglar at 2018-12-12 09:50 AM | Reply

I don't understand why people who are 55-65 can't buy into Medicare as proposed. This appears to be a zero sum proposition.

#20 | Posted by zarnon at 2018-12-12 10:09 AM | Reply

Interesting, but not surprising they leave the "DeepDeep pocketed doctors"

AMA PRESIDENT: IT'S STILL 'NO' TO SINGLE PAYER

The AMA stance does not represent the views of all doctors and certainly not mine.

You might be surprised this is a controversial position within the membership.

time.com

A much lesser known group (that I support) is Physicians for A National Health Program:

pnhp.org

#21 | Posted by zarnon at 2018-12-12 10:13 AM | Reply

It's the lobbyists again.

Of course it is. You think they're going to pass on the world's best racket?

Hospitals and pharma cos have are selling the perfect product. Demand never drops and people will forgo food to buy it. There's also little to no restrictions or regulations on how much they can charge for these products.

For insurance companies, they get to bill you for a service monthly that they rarely pay anything out for and even when they do, they make sure it's absolutely as little as possible.

They're the gate keepers to something everybody wants and will pay to get. There's no way they're letting that extremely lucrative position of power go without a fight.

#22 | Posted by jpw at 2018-12-12 10:14 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"The phrase ‘higher taxes' is less popular than ‘single payer.'"

Of course it is. Higher taxes cuts to the point. Its real. Single Payer is a process. It requires higher taxes. It just doesnt say it. Liberals are good at that. Renaming something so it doesnt sound like what it is. Once a person understands what it is and what it entails, it gets even less popular.

#23 | Posted by boaz at 2018-12-12 10:25 AM | Reply

An increase in taxes smaller than the cost employees and employers pay now for insurance would not be a hard sell to most people.

As if anything dealing with public healthcare will be "small". Especially anything dealing with paying for it. The price certainly will not be small.

#24 | Posted by boaz at 2018-12-12 10:27 AM | Reply

"Renaming something so it doesnt sound like what it is." - #23 | Posted by boaz at 2018-12-12 10:25 AM

Words That Work: It's Not What You Say, It's What People Hear by Frank Luntz
What was that again, something about how liberals rename something?

Pwned again, Clayton.

#25 | Posted by Hans at 2018-12-12 10:30 AM | Reply

So far the only studies i've seen indicate that Medicare for all would cost less than we currently pay for healthcare. Yes, you'll be paying that money to the government instead of an insurance company and hospital. But if it's less than you currently pay, why would you care?

#26 | Posted by JOE at 2018-12-12 10:31 AM | Reply

But if it's less than you currently pay, why would you care?

#26 | POSTED BY JOE

That's a fair question. My answer is that our government has consistently proven that it's unwilling and incapable of paying its current obligations as evidenced by the debt, deficits and their trajectory and unfunded liabilities. Until the government does what it needs to do (a combination of spending cuts, structural reform and tax increases) I will staunchly oppose adding any new spending especially something as massive as single payer.

#27 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-12-12 10:37 AM | Reply

#27 What if the funds paid into Medicare for all were earmarked only for that program, and it was funded at a level that exceeds all reasonable estimates? Why would you oppose it at that point?

#28 | Posted by JOE at 2018-12-12 10:52 AM | Reply

#27 What if the funds paid into Medicare for all were earmarked only for that program, and it was funded at a level that exceeds all reasonable estimates? Why would you oppose it at that point?

#28 | POSTED BY JOE

Another fair question. The answer is still no. Social Security was held in a lock-box but in the '90's it was merged into the general trust which is what created the brief surplus. Even if Medicare-for-all was funded separately with a new FICA-like tax to fund it, the overall funding of our government problem is still there and is even more difficult to tackle from a revenue standpoint as we will have just added massive new spending obligations.

#29 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-12-12 10:58 AM | Reply

The answer is still no.

Of course it is.

Funny how principled you are when it comes to spending money on regular people and not corporations and billionaires.

#30 | Posted by JOE at 2018-12-12 11:00 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

the overall funding of our government problem is still there and is even more difficult to tackle from a revenue standpoint as we will have just added massive new spending obligations.

If you create a new program that is entirely paid for, and costs less than people currently pay for that service, it will literally have zero impact on other spending. Stop inventing reasons to oppose something when the real reason is "me no likey."

#31 | Posted by JOE at 2018-12-12 11:02 AM | Reply

Once a person understands what it is and what it entails, it gets even less popular.

#23 | Posted by boaz

You really do live in a self-created bullsh** bubble, don't you?

You do realize that even if you're paying higher "taxes", you're not paying premiums, copays will likely be lower and out of pocket costs lower.

Hell, why are you even bitching about it. You take advantage of your government provided healthcare, don't you?

#32 | Posted by jpw at 2018-12-12 11:12 AM | Reply

Piss off, Joe.

I gave you my reasoning and it is principled.

#33 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-12-12 11:20 AM | Reply

Single payer is not Utopia.

It comes with positive and negative tradeoffs. Quality of care and access to care (in terms of wait times) are diminished. Care is also rationed. On the whole, it is a better overall value than what we currently have. Keep in mind - most people who have health insurance have it through their employer and 85% of people are happy with what they have. Taking that away is extremely difficult politically.

#34 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-12-12 11:23 AM | Reply

Single payer is a fool's errand.

You're not going to get it all at once.

A public option will get you there within several years as it opens the door for government to regulate private insurance out of business effectively forcing everyone to take the public option.

#35 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-12-12 11:27 AM | Reply

Quality of care and access to care (in terms of wait times) are diminished.

Oh the trials and tribulations of those at the top of the pyramid.

For a large large number of people, the opposite is true under single payer-they finally get access to proper care and treatments to make meaningful differences in their lives.

And to address your issue, make the system such that supplemental insurance is available for those who can afford it and want it.

#36 | Posted by jpw at 2018-12-12 11:27 AM | Reply

"Social Security was held in a lock-box but in the '90's it was merged into the general trust which is what created the brief surplus."

Not true at all. It was Reagan, in the 80s, who broke into the SS trust fund. And Clinton delivered TRUE surplus budgets, not even counting overcollections from SS. Then Bush and Cheney chose to reset America's fiscal sights toward endless deficits.

#37 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-12-12 11:30 AM | Reply

As always, it's the GOP who breaks things then acts like they're the ones who know how to fix it.

#38 | Posted by jpw at 2018-12-12 11:32 AM | Reply

"As always, it's the GOP who breaks things then acts like they're the ones who know how to fix it." - #38 | Posted by jpw at 2018-12-12 11:32 AM

"The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." - P. J. O'Rourke

#39 | Posted by Hans at 2018-12-12 11:35 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"I gave you my reasoning and it is principled."

Not for the reasons you're claiming.

And once again, you're using Republican Math.

#40 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-12-12 11:37 AM | Reply

Not for the reasons you're claiming.

#40 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Absolutely for the reasons I'm claiming.

#41 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-12-12 11:45 AM | Reply

"The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." - P. J. O'Rourke

#39 | POSTED BY HANS

I paraphrased that quote yesterday.

#42 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-12-12 11:46 AM | Reply

"Absolutely for the reasons I'm claiming"

Then your math skills suck.

#43 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-12-12 11:47 AM | Reply

Renaming something so it doesnt sound like what it is.

Like "Obamacare"?

Once a person understands what it is and what it entails, it gets even less popular.
#23 | Posted by boaz

Actually. People liked their ACA. Too bad they were too stupid and gullible to also hate Obamacare. Even though it's the same exact thing.

Also. Don't you already receive government healthcare provided to you by American tax dollars?

Do shut up.

#44 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-12-12 11:51 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Quality of care and access to care (in terms of wait times) are diminished.

Nice lie. I won't even bother reading the rest of your lying post, liar.

Despite having the most expensive health care system, the United States ranks last overall among 11 industrialized countries on measures of health system quality, efficiency, access to care, equity, and healthy lives
www.commonwealthfund.org

#45 | Posted by JOE at 2018-12-12 11:51 AM | Reply

"I paraphrased that quote yesterday." - #42 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-12-12 11:46 AM

:-)

#46 | Posted by Hans at 2018-12-12 11:52 AM | Reply

Plenty of ways to measure healthcare quality. Lets see some links, lying Jeff.

"The U.S. has the highest rate of deaths amenable to health care among comparable countries"
www.healthsystemtracker.org

#47 | Posted by JOE at 2018-12-12 12:00 PM | Reply

"1. The U.S. ranked last place among the 11 countries for health outcomes, equity and quality, despite having the highest per capita health earnings.

2. The U.S. also had the highest rate of mortality amenable to healthcare, meaning more Americans die from poor care quality than any other country involved in the study.

3. Poor access to primary care in the U.S. has contributed to inadequate chronic disease prevention and management, delayed diagnoses and safety concerns, among other issues."
www.beckershospitalreview.com

#48 | Posted by JOE at 2018-12-12 12:04 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"In a global ranking of personal health care access and quality, the United States came in at 29th out of 195 countries. This put the US in the 9th decile along with countries including the UK, Malta, Lebanon, Singapore, and South Korea.

The HAQ Index encompasses 32 causes of death considered to be avoidable provided that quality healthcare is available. These causes include a range of health service areas: vaccine-preventable diseases; infectious diseases and maternal and child health; non-communicable diseases, including cancers, cardiovascular diseases, and diabetes; and gastrointestinal conditions from which surgery can easily avert death, such as appendicitis."
www.mdmag.com

#49 | Posted by JOE at 2018-12-12 12:07 PM | Reply

Not true at all. It was Reagan, in the 80s, who broke into the SS trust fund. And Clinton delivered TRUE surplus budgets, not even counting overcollections from SS. Then Bush and Cheney chose to reset America's fiscal sights toward endless deficits.

#37 | POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2018-12-12 11:30 AM | FLAG: Close, but no cigar:

" Lyndon Johnson was the first president to borrow from the Social Security Trust Fund. He needed to pay for the Vietnam War. Next was Ronald Reagan and the military buildup of the 1980s."
Has any president ever borrowed money from social security? - Quora
www.quora.com

#50 | Posted by MSgt at 2018-12-12 12:08 PM | Reply

Then your math skills suck.

#43 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Really?

Are we not running serial deficits?

Are we not over $20 Trillion in debt?

Do we not have >$80 Trillion in unfunded liabilities?

#51 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-12-12 12:15 PM | Reply

"A comprehensive review process looked at nearly 32 causes of death preventable through proper medical care. Based on this, each of the 195 countries was scored between 0-100.

Countries with the highest levels of healthcare quality and accessibility in 2016 were Iceland (97.1 points), Norway (96.6), the Netherlands (96.1), Luxembourg (96.0), and Finland and Australia (each with 95.9)."
ceoworld.biz

#52 | Posted by JOE at 2018-12-12 12:16 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I'm currently at the doctors office with my lovely bride, and can't link , but I found several articles proving he didn't take from SS , he simply melded the two accounts so the deficit would look smaller. Reagan, on the other hand, actively borrowed from it.

Of course, it doesn't change the facts on the ground: Clinton delivered true surplus budgets, and Republicans single-handedly reset America's fiscal sights from Surplusville to Debtsylvania.

#53 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-12-12 12:20 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Private health insurers subsidize government programs. It's a hidden tax and it's something that needs to be kept in mind when discussing the cost-savings of single-payer.

#54 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-12-12 12:20 PM | Reply

Of course, it doesn't change the facts on the ground: Clinton delivered true surplus budgets, and Republicans single-handedly reset America's fiscal sights from Surplusville to Debtsylvania.

#53 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

The only times this country even remotely approaches fiscal sanity is when a Democrat is in the WH and the GOP controls the House.

#55 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-12-12 12:21 PM | Reply

Yeah, Newt Gingrich and the House GOP were the sane ones.... uh, sure.

#56 | Posted by Corky at 2018-12-12 12:23 PM | Reply

So are you done claiming that quality of care is diminished by government run health systems, Jeff?

#57 | Posted by JOE at 2018-12-12 12:24 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"The only times this country even remotely approaches fiscal sanity is when a Democrat is in the WH and the GOP controls the House." - #55 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-12-12 12:21 PM

Also happened under LBJ (FY1969), with a Democratic Congress.

#58 | Posted by Hans at 2018-12-12 12:25 PM | Reply

So are you done claiming that quality of care is diminished by government run health systems, Jeff?

#57 | POSTED BY JOE

Nope.

#59 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-12-12 12:26 PM | Reply

"Really?"

Yes, really. When something will cost less of our GDP, and you hair is on fire because of the increased costs, your math sucks.

"...20 trillion deficit "

Yep, thanks to Republicans purposefully resetting America's fiscal sights.

#60 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-12-12 12:27 PM | Reply

#57

Yeah, but see Joe those N European countries are SOCIALISTS! Commies and Stalinists!

Or maybe they are capitalist social democracies with decent safety nets... and the happiest peoples in the world.

#61 | Posted by Corky at 2018-12-12 12:27 PM | Reply

Do you want me to bust out some links about the NHS in the UK?

Wait times in Canada?

#62 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-12-12 12:27 PM | Reply

Yes, really. When something will cost less of our GDP, and you hair is on fire because of the increased costs, your math sucks....

#60 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

I never made that claim. You need a reading comprehension tutor.

#63 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-12-12 12:28 PM | Reply

Do you want me to bust out some links about the NHS in the UK?
Wait times in Canada?

Comprehensive studies like the ones i posted are more reliable than anecdotes, but feel free to make yourself look stupid.

#64 | Posted by JOE at 2018-12-12 12:33 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Remove the tampon, Little Joe.

#65 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-12-12 12:34 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

#63

Reread #29 as many times as it takes.

#66 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-12-12 12:34 PM | Reply

#65 ?

The only person being a little bitch here is you. I'm sorry you don't like being proven wrong but projection is not making you look any better.

#67 | Posted by JOE at 2018-12-12 12:37 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"They're the gate keepers to something everybody wants and will pay to get. There's no way they're letting that extremely lucrative position of power go without a fight."

#22 | POSTED BY JPW

Exactamente Baby! You nailed it.

It's like what someone said here on the DR a couple months ago. The current US healthcare system is nothing more than an extortion racket.

#68 | Posted by shane at 2018-12-12 12:43 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

""We know the insurance companies and the pharma companies are all putting tens of millions of dollars into trying to defeat us," said Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), who co-chairs the Medicare for All Congressional Caucus. "Which I take as a badge of honor -- that they're so concerned about a good policy that they're going to put so much money into trying to defeat it.""

In other words, one of the biggest enemies they have are the ones they created themselves under Obama, who made it very easy for insurance companies to become very wealthy by forcing people to get insurance. And this was one of the warnings given by many Reps. That's the problem with both sides, they fight so hard for their plan and completely ignore the negatives the other side is warning them about. So instead of spending some effort on stopping the negatives from becoming big issues, they just spend all their effort on ignoring them. Partisan hate is ruining so much of America.

#69 | Posted by humtake at 2018-12-12 12:48 PM | Reply

"...who made it very easy for insurance companies to become very wealthy by forcing people to get insurance." - #69 | Posted by humtake at 2018-12-12 12:48 PM

"Become very wealthy"?

As if insurance companies, especially health insurance companies, were impoverished, charitable organizations before Obamacare.

#70 | Posted by Hans at 2018-12-12 12:53 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#67

You are the one who started being a dick for no reason.

I finally decided to reply in kind.

#71 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-12-12 12:54 PM | Reply

#71

I didn't even need to scroll up to know you were talking about Little Joe.

Shocker.

#72 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-12-12 12:59 PM | Reply

Whatever makes you feel better about your owie, jeff.

#73 | Posted by JOE at 2018-12-12 01:02 PM | Reply

I didn't even need to scroll up to know you were talking about Little Joe.
Shocker.

#72 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

Yep. He's smart, well-read and is agile in debate. It's unfortunate that he's also a ----- when he doesn't need to be.

#74 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-12-12 01:07 PM | Reply

It's unfortunate that he's also a ----- when he doesn't need to be.

He thinks he's so superior that he doesnt realize he is an -------.

#75 | Posted by boaz at 2018-12-12 01:11 PM | Reply

Enjoy your-----------, fellas. If you can't handle being called out for being a liar then either don't be a liar or get off the internet.

#76 | Posted by JOE at 2018-12-12 01:25 PM | Reply

--don't be a liar or get off the internet.

Don't get angry, Angry Joe. You might have a heart attack.

"Dr. Buckley says episodes of anger or anxiety can cause increased heart rate, high blood pressure, narrowing of blood vessels and increased clotting, all of which can be heart attack triggers."

Angry outbursts may raise the risk of heart attack - Medical News Today
www.medicalnewstoday.com

#77 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-12-12 01:29 PM | Reply

Partisan hate is ruining so much of America.

#69 | Posted by humtake

"YOU LIE!"

#78 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-12-12 01:38 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Angry outbursts may raise the risk of heart attack - Medical News Today"

Does that mean Trump is going to pay the medical bills if one of you Trump Guzzlers has to get rough with a protester at a Trump rally?

Not like your lilywhite candy ass has ever thrown a punch in anger... but you might run over some toes in your mobility scooter!

#79 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-12-12 01:43 PM | Reply

Do we not have >$80 Trillion in unfunded liabilities?

No. You still don't understand what a projection is?

#80 | Posted by jpw at 2018-12-12 01:55 PM | Reply

"Do we not have >$80 Trillion in unfunded liabilities?

No. You still don't understand what a projection is?"

Oh that JeffJ! He's like a Tralfamadorean who sees all time at once. Future liabilities which aren't set in stone and won't happen for 70 years.. have already happened to him.

#81 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-12-12 02:01 PM | Reply

"Of course it is. Higher taxes cuts to the point. Its real. Single Payer is a process. It requires higher taxes. It just doesnt say it. Liberals are good at that. Renaming something so it doesnt sound like what it is. Once a person understands what it is and what it entails, it gets even less popular."

Argues against taxpayer funded healthcare.
Gets taxpayer funded healthcare.

The cognitive dissonance is overwhelming.

#82 | Posted by zarnon at 2018-12-12 02:04 PM | Reply

All dissonance, no cognition.

#83 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-12-12 02:07 PM | Reply

No. You still don't understand what a projection is?

#80 | POSTED BY JPW

Okay, literalist.

Do we not have projected >$80 Trillion in unfunded liabilities?

Better?

#84 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-12-12 02:08 PM | Reply

All Republicans can see is HGHER TAXES!!! HIGHER TAXES!!! HIGHER TAXES!!!

In the Republican's brain, higher taxes are bad, period. It doesn't matter the end result if it wasn't achieved via the Holy Free Market.

#85 | Posted by hamburglar at 2018-12-12 02:10 PM | Reply

over the years, I've come to a conclusion that the only solution to this is single payer health care. I'm totally on board with that.

But having said that, the biggest obstacle I've seen in recent years that represents an effort to "crush medicare for all" is the passage and implementation of Obamacare, which further entrenches the private health insurance industry further into the system.

#86 | Posted by eberly at 2018-12-12 02:13 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

over the years, I've come to a conclusion that the only solution to this is single payer health care. I'm totally on board with that.
But having said that, the biggest obstacle I've seen in recent years that represents an effort to "crush medicare for all" is the passage and implementation of Obamacare, which further entrenches the private health insurance industry further into the system.

#86 | Posted by eberly

No the biggest obstacle is republican tribalism.

Libs are evil and libs want single payer, therefore single payer is evil.

So evil in fact, that it represents the downfall of america if enacted and should be resisted with violent opposition if needed.

#87 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-12-12 02:17 PM | Reply

Do we not have projected >$80 Trillion in unfunded liabilities?
#84 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Depends.
Projected over what time frame?

#88 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-12-12 02:23 PM | Reply

Don't get angry, Angry Joe. You might have a heart attack.

Looks like Angry Little Joe could use some enlightenment.

#89 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-12-12 02:28 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"over the years, I've come to a conclusion that the only solution to this is single payer health care. I'm totally on board with that."

I think single payer is too much to ask for here, Eberly.

A public option seems like the only way for everyone to get what they want.

Regular people just get health care, which is all they really want,

Rich people can still pay extra to get private hospital rooms and aromatherapy.

Plus, the private companies will actually have to compete for customers; competition being a necessary ingredient for capitalism to work for market participants and not merely for the marketers themselves.

#90 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-12-12 02:37 PM | Reply

" I will staunchly oppose adding any new spending..."

"...while simultaneously supporting borrowing an extra #2.1 Trillion to give away to the world's wealthiest 1%"

At least post the complete sentence.

#91 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-12-12 02:39 PM | Reply

"Private health insurers subsidize government programs. It's a hidden tax and it's something that needs to be kept in mind when discussing the cost-savings of single-payer.
#54 | POSTED BY JEFFJ"

How do you propose keeping it in mind, when simgle payer would eliminate those private insurers?

#92 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-12-12 02:50 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Quality of care and access to care (in terms of wait times) are diminished. Care is also rationed. On the whole, it is a better overall value than what we currently have. Keep in mind - most people who have health insurance have it through their employer and 85% of people are happy with what they have. Taking that away is extremely difficult politically.

#34 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

How long are wait times and how good is the care for those who currently do not have insurance or have insurance with deductibles so high they try to avoid using it? Who says you have to take away employer provided insurance? A national healthcare system/single payer assures everyone of at least a certain level of care. There is no reason that you also should not be able to have a private plan on top of that if you can afford to do so. Companies can still offer additional coverage. Take a look at the top 10 health systems in the world (which the US is not one of) and you see that is how many of them are structured.

#93 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2018-12-12 02:56 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#63
Reread #29 as many times as it takes.

#66 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

I just did. #29 does not say what you are characterizing it as saying.

Do you need clarification?

" I will staunchly oppose adding any new spending..."
"...while simultaneously supporting borrowing an extra #2.1 Trillion to give away to the world's wealthiest 1%"
At least post the complete sentence.

#91 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Straw man. How many times over the past few weeks have I said our government needs to be fully funded, especially when the economy is good. You are starting to catch Jefflexia from Laura.

"Private health insurers subsidize government programs. It's a hidden tax and it's something that needs to be kept in mind when discussing the cost-savings of single-payer.
#54 | POSTED BY JEFFJ"
How do you propose keeping it in mind, when simgle payer would eliminate those private insurers?

#92 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2018-12-12 02:50 PM

The point I was making is that we can't use current Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement rates and tie them to single payer. Providers are charging private insurers higher rates in order to compensate for providing for the government at a loss.

#94 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-12-12 03:04 PM | Reply

"The point I was making is that we can't use current Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement rates and tie them to single payer."

Then you should have said that, instead of a bunch of vagueness.

"Providers are charging private insurers higher rates in order to compensate for providing for the government at a loss."

So. Do you think CMS should pay providers more? Or do limit your thinking to CMS isn't paying enough, but that's okay?

#95 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-12-12 03:19 PM | Reply

#89 | Posted by Rightocenter

One of my favorite Buddha quotes.

#96 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-12-12 03:48 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"How many times over the past few weeks have I said our government needs to be fully funded"

You operate in half-truths, JeffJ.

Your only plan to fully fund government is to dramatically reduce the size of government to the point where current tax revenue covers current expenditure.

What do we call it when you call a decrease in funding "fully funding?"

It's disheartening that you engage in such tendenious mendacity, day in and day out. But then, you don't know any other way.

#97 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-12-12 03:54 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

How many times over the past few weeks have I said our government needs to be fully funded

#94 | Posted by JeffJ

What does it matter what you say, when what you DO is support and defend the party that does a worse job of fully funding it?

Stop talking and start voting your priorities.

#98 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-12-12 04:10 PM | Reply

What does it matter what you say, when what you DO is support and defend the party that does a worse job of fully funding it?
Stop talking and start voting your priorities.

#98 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

Until Democrats actually set out to fully fund our government, that they are slightly less bad about it than the GOP is just window dressing to me.

#99 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-12-12 04:14 PM | Reply

So you're crowing about an issue you consider window dressing.

Do you know what disingenuous means, JeffJ?

#100 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-12-12 04:15 PM | Reply

"How many times over the past few weeks have I said our government needs to be fully funded"

Not nearly as many times as you've voted for those who run the exact opposite way.

#101 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-12-12 04:18 PM | Reply

-No the biggest obstacle is republican tribalism.

in recent years? not really. Over the past 25 years? Yes.

#102 | Posted by eberly at 2018-12-12 04:36 PM | Reply

The US government hasn't been "fully funded" for even a year since the late 90's, and before that you'd have to go all the way back to the 1960's. To claim that our government must be "fully funded" before we do what's right for our own people is a cop-out. You don't demand that our government be fully funded before it builds another road in Afghanistan, you don't require that our government be fully funded before Trump plays another round of taxpayer-funded golf. We would have to shut down the entire government right now, including DoD, if fully funding it was a truly held ideological prerequisite to spending money. You literally only require it when there is a program being proposed that you don't like. That's called being a hack.

#103 | Posted by JOE at 2018-12-12 04:53 PM | Reply

"You literally only require it when there is a program being proposed that you don't like."

And when a program is proposed to exacerbate the problem, he votes for those folks...

...then decries their actions...

...then votes for them again.

#104 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-12-12 04:55 PM | Reply

"To claim that our government must be "fully funded" before we do what's right for our own people is a cop-out."

More than that, it's somehwre between "Denial" and "Bargaining" on the Kübler-Ross scale.

#105 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-12-12 04:57 PM | Reply

Until Democrats actually set out to fully fund our government, that they are slightly less bad about it than the GOP is just window dressing to me.

#99 | Posted by JeffJ

Right. Just like with climate change, you wont do the right thing until you're guaranteed a 100% successful effective result.

For you, there is no reason to do something that's BETTER unless it's PERFECT.

What a baby.

#106 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-12-12 05:23 PM | Reply

"But having said that, the biggest obstacle I've seen in recent years that represents an effort to "crush medicare for all" is the passage and implementation of Obamacare, which further entrenches the private health insurance industry further into the system.
#86 | Posted by eberly"

You see that (which, at its core, is an example of gov't meddling with the healthcare system that actually improved the system) as more of an obstacle than Republican (and some Democrat) obstruction, fueled by the very powerful lobbies for industries that make gobs of money off the current system?

I agree with you that Obamacare further entrenched private insurance, but don't agree that it is the biggest obstacle to single payer.

#107 | Posted by mOntecOre at 2018-12-12 05:26 PM | Reply

-You see that (which, at its core, is an example of gov't meddling with the healthcare system that actually improved the system) as more of an obstacle than Republican (and some Democrat) obstruction, fueled by the very powerful lobbies for industries that make gobs of money off the current system?

in recent years, yes. Overall, no. I agree with your statement...but in years past, the health care industry has lobbied both sides.

Once we get another switch in power, especially when a dem occupies the WH in 2 years, watch what happens with the money and where it goes.

That is not a defense of republican whores.....just a recognition of our system.

#108 | Posted by eberly at 2018-12-12 05:53 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

RoC is correct again. This fight is over a very big pot of money, trillions are at stake. US Doctors, nurses and patients are forced to spend too much time dealing with health insurance companies that have nothing to do with health care.

The GOP assault on the american people is straight in your face. The Democrat assault is all about feel good double talk.

#109 | Posted by bayviking at 2018-12-12 10:58 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

For you, there is no reason to do something that's BETTER unless it's PERFECT.
What a baby.

#106 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

This coming from the guy who demands absolute purity from Democratic Party candidates.

The self-irony is rich.

#110 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-12-13 10:32 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

I agree with you that Obamacare further entrenched private insurance, but don't agree that it is the biggest obstacle to single payer.

#107 | POSTED BY MONTECORE

Agreed. Single payer has far bigger obstacles than ACA.

#111 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-12-13 10:34 AM | Reply

"I agree with you that Obamacare further entrenched private insurance, but don't agree that it is the biggest obstacle to single payer."

Baloney. All we need to do is enact a Public Option and include it as a provider in every state. Rates would be lower because Insurance company profits and administrative costs would be dramatically reduced or eliminated. Obamacare was a stepping stone necessary to move us to single payer. We will get to single payer much faster than anyone expect, sort of like gay marriage. I told all of you it was inevitable back when it was still completely rejected by the majority, then it happened right in all of our faces, thankfully and accepted as something that should have been legal all along. So too, single payer will come. Generally speaking, what I have noticed in this country, when there is a giant push for progressive ideas the right consolidates and fights it in one last stand against it, then they are overwhelmed and progress happens then they pretend they supported it all along. This happened with Civil Rights, opposition to the Vietnam War, Medicare, Social Security, opposition to the Iraq Invasion, etc. The one thing you can be sure of; THE RIGHT IS WRONG ABOUT EVERYTHING ALWAYS. I'm getting old and I've yet to discover a single issue that that statement is not proven correct.

#112 | Posted by danni at 2018-12-13 10:48 AM | Reply

#112

I agree with you on this. A public option would kill almost all private insurance within a few years as the government would be able to regulate private insurance out of business. A public option can run at a loss, private insurance cannot. A public option creates a situation where the government becomes both a player in the game and the referee. I could beat Lebron James in a game of 1-on-1 if I were also the ref. A public option is a Trojan horse for single payer.

#113 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-12-13 10:53 AM | Reply

"I could beat Lebron James in a game of 1-on-1 if I were also the ref."

Jeff, I like your post but you couldn't beat Lebron if he slept through the match.

#114 | Posted by danni at 2018-12-13 11:03 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Danni,

Any time he had the ball id immediately whistle him for traveling. Any time I had the ball I'd immediately call a shooting foul on him. I'd do this until I hit one free throw and then I'd declare the game over. A public option would function the same way.

#115 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-12-13 11:55 AM | Reply

"If you create a new program that is entirely paid for, and costs less than people currently pay for that service, it will literally have zero impact on other spending. Stop inventing reasons to oppose something when the real reason is "me no likey."

Jeff's points aside...how can you make the argument that stakeholders, excluding in this case for-profit insurance-providers, are not going to see any changes in costs or revenue streams? I agree with you...I don't really care who gets the money for the care I'm provided, but someone somewhere is going to have to incur those losses, and I don't see how eliminating profits would result in substantial cost savings, even if you are assuming that the government is able to operate at perfect efficiency.

#116 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-12-13 05:57 PM | Reply

"A public option can run at a loss, private insurance cannot."

You know nothing about business.
Tell us how long Amazon ran at a loss.
It's sad watching you try to think.

#117 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-12-13 06:03 PM | Reply

"I don't see how eliminating profits would result in substantial cost savings"

Check this out: You subtract the profit from the "accounts payable" side of the ledger and add it to the "accounts receivable" side.

See?

#118 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-12-13 06:06 PM | Reply

#109

Agreed (obviously), and while I think that Medicare for All is inevitable, it is going to be extremely painful getting there because the ONLY way to pay for it is to force the private insurance companies/healthcare providers to forego trillions of dollars of premiums and payments that would now have to be paid to the Government. Anyone who doesn't think that the Insurance Companies and Hospitals are going to fight that until their last breath is either stupid, deliberately obtuse or both.

#119 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-12-13 06:06 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"I could beat Lebron James in a game of 1-on-1 if I were also the ref."

And just who do you think "the ref" is in health care, JeffJ?

#120 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-12-13 06:08 PM | Reply

"Check this out: You subtract the profit from the "accounts payable" side of the ledger and add it to the "accounts receivable" side."

That's not really how it works...but even if it were, exchanging that 3-8% profit margin isn't going to result in substantial savings.

#121 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-12-13 06:10 PM | Reply

are => aren't

#122 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-12-13 06:11 PM | Reply

"Any time he had the ball id immediately whistle him for traveling. Any time I had the ball I'd immediately call a shooting foul on him. I'd do this until I hit one free throw and then I'd declare the game over. A public option would function the same way.
#115 | POSTED BY JEFFJ"

Meanwhile, back in reality,

Publicly funded healthcare is a form of health care financing designed to meet the cost of all or most healthcare needs from a publicly managed fund. Usually this is under some form of democratic accountability, the right of access to which are set down in rules applying to the whole population contributing to the fund or receiving benefits from it.

#123 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-12-13 06:12 PM | Reply

how can you make the argument that stakeholders, excluding in this case for-profit insurance-providers, are not going to see any changes in costs or revenue streams?

I never made that argument.

it is going to be extremely painful getting there because the ONLY way to pay for it is to force the private insurance companies/healthcare providers to forego trillions of dollars of premiums and payments that would now have to be paid to the Government.

It will be painful...for them. I don't give a rip how much profit an insurance company makes.

#124 | Posted by JOE at 2018-12-13 06:15 PM | Reply

"US Doctors, nurses and patients are forced to spend too much time dealing with health insurance companies that have nothing to do with health care."

I love how they just ignore this aspect and pretend economies of scale don't exist.

Aetna has never even seen a patient. They just push paperwork. The whole system is make-work. I suspect people like MadBomber and JeffJ who don't have meaningful jobs can't tell the difference.

#125 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-12-13 06:15 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"exchanging that 3-8% profit margin isn't going to result in substantial savings.
#121 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER"

3-8% savings isn't substabtial now?
What's the magic number?

#126 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-12-13 06:17 PM | Reply

"Any time he had the ball id immediately whistle him for traveling. Any time I had the ball I'd immediately call a shooting foul on him. I'd do this until I hit one free throw and then I'd declare the game over. A public option would function the same way.
#115 | POSTED BY JEFFJ"

JeffJ is Eric Cartman.

#127 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-12-13 06:18 PM | Reply

"3-8% savings isn't substantial now? What's the magic number?"

I'm not sure.

Is that enough to scratch your itch?

#128 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-12-13 06:28 PM | Reply

My perfect itch or my good one?

#129 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-12-13 06:56 PM | Reply

In the interest of furthering an academic argument, lets go with good.

#130 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-12-13 08:20 PM | Reply

5% savings is good enough to pursue.

That's about 1% of GDP.

#131 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-12-13 08:22 PM | Reply

"Any time he had the ball id immediately whistle him for traveling. Any time I had the ball I'd immediately call a shooting foul on him. I'd do this until I hit one free throw and then I'd declare the game over. A public option would function the same way."

In actuality, Lebron would take three steps toward you in a menacing manner and you would run off the court screaming like a little girl.

#132 | Posted by danni at 2018-12-14 07:01 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort