Liberal Lies On Health Care III

ViRedd

ViRedd

New Member
LIBERAL LIES ABOUT NATIONAL HEALTH CARE: THIRD IN A SERIES (COMMEMORATIVE PLATES ON SALE NOW!)
by Ann Coulter
September 2, 2009

(9) If you like Medicare, you'll love national health care, which will just extend Medicare's benefits to everyone.

Hey -- I have an idea: How about we make everyone in America a multimillionaire by pulling Bernie Madoff out of prison and asking him to invest all our money! Both Medicare and Bernie Madoff's investment portfolio are bankrupt because they operate on a similar financial model known as a "Ponzi scheme." These always seem to run fabulously well -- until the money runs out.

Not only is Medicare bankrupt, but it is extremely limited in whom and what it covers. If Medicare were a private insurer, it would be illegal in many states for failing to cover hearing aids, podiatry, acupuncture, chiropractic care, marriage counseling, aromatherapy and gender reassignment surgery.

Moreover, Medicare payments aren't enough to pay the true cost of those medical services it does cover. With Medicare undercutting payments to hospitals and doctors for patients 65 and older, what keeps the American medical system afloat are private individuals who are not covered by Medicare paying full freight (and then some). That's why you end up with a $10 aspirin on your hospital bill.

National health care will eliminate everything outside of Medicare, which is the only thing that allows Medicare to exist.

Obviously, therefore, it's preposterous for Democrats to say national health care will merely extend Medicare to the entire population. This would be like claiming you're designing an apartment building in which every apartment will be a penthouse. Everyone likes the penthouses, so why not have a building in which every apartment is a penthouse?

It doesn't work: What makes the penthouse the penthouse is all the other floors below. An "all-penthouse" building is a blueprint that could make sense only to someone who has never run a business and has zero common sense, i.e., a Democrat.

(10) National health care won't cover illegal aliens -- as the president has twice claimed in recent radio appearances.

Technically, what Obama said is that the bill isn't "designed" to give health insurance to illegal aliens. (That bill, the "Health Insurance for Illegal Aliens Act of 2009," was still being drafted by Ted Kennedy at the time of his death, may he rest in peace.)

But unless the various government bureaucracies dispensing health care are specifically required by law to ask about citizenship status, illegals will be covered. We can't even get employers and police to inquire about citizenship status, but liberals assure us that doctors will?

And by the way -- as with the abortion exclusion -- the Democrats expressly rejected amendments that would have required proof of residency status to receive national health care.

Still not convinced? Day after day, The New York Times has been neurotically asserting that national health care won't cover illegal aliens (without ever explaining how precisely it will exclude illegal aliens).

So far, just this week, these Kim Jong Il-style pronouncements have appeared in the Treason Times:

-- "Illegal immigrants will be covered. (Myth)" -- Katharine Q. Seelye, "Myth vs. Fact vs. Other," The New York Times, Sept. 2, 2009

-- "(Sen. Jim DeMint) fueled speculation that a health care overhaul would cover illegal immigrants, although specific language says it would not." -- Katharine Q. Seelye, "Fighting Health Care Overhaul, and Proud of It," The New York Times, Aug. 31, 2009

-- "'Page 50: All non-U.S. citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free health care services.' ... The falsehoods include (that italic statement)." -- Michael Mason, "Vetting Claims in a Memo," The New York Times, Aug. 30, 2009

-- "But that would not help illegal immigrants. Contrary to some reports, they would not be eligible for any new health coverage under any of the health overhaul plans circulating in Congress." -- Duff Wilson, "Race, Ethnicity and Care," The New York Times, Aug. 30, 2009

The last time the Times engaged in such frantic perseveration about a subject was when the paper was repeatedly insisting that Durham prosecutor Mike Nifong had a solid case against the Duke lacrosse players.

By August 2006, every single person in the United States, including the stripper, knew the stripper's claim of "gang rape" was a lie. That was when Duff Wilson -- quoted above -- co-wrote the Times' infamous cover story on the Duke case, titled: "Files From Duke Rape Case Give Details but No Answers." No answers!

(11) Obama has dropped his demand for the ironically titled "public option" (i.e., government-run health care), which taxpayers will not have an "option" to pay for or not.

Liberals never, ever drop a heinous idea; they just change the name. "Abortion" becomes "choice," "communist" becomes "progressive," "communist dictatorship" becomes "people's democratic republic" and "Nikita Khrushchev" becomes "Barack Obama."

It doesn't matter if liberals start calling national health care a "chocolate chip puppy" or "ice cream sunset" -- if the government is subsidizing it, then the government calls the shots. And the moment the government gets its hands on the controls, it will be establishing death panels, forcing taxpayers to pay for abortions and illegal aliens, rationing care and then demanding yet more government control when partial government control creates a mess.

Which happens to be exactly what liberals are doing right now.
 
Higher Education

Higher Education

Well-Known Member
Good shit. Everyone should pay their share, and nothing more, including people who are too lazy to get jobs and buy private insurance. The current system can take care of the truely disabled.
 
ViRedd

ViRedd

New Member
Higher Education said:
Good shit. Everyone should pay their share, and nothing more, including people who are too lazy to get jobs and buy private insurance. The current system can take care of the truely disabled.
Click to expand...
Now wait just a second here! For a guy who goes by the name of "Higher Education," you are being WAY too logical. :lol:
 
jeffchr

jeffchr

Well-Known Member
quoting the Poltergeist - really?

"Socialized medicine" smear is false

Progressive reform is not socialized medicine. The Urban Institute wrote in an April 2008 analysis that "socialized medicine involves government financing and direct provision of health care services," and explained that recent progressive health care reform proposals do not "fit this description." The analysis also noted, "Similar rhetoric was used to defeat national health care reform proposals in the 1990s and, with less success, to argue against the creation of Medicare in the 1960s."
Obama has not proposed socialized medicine, single payer, or nationalized health care. As PolitiFact.com noted in a March 5 post, "Obama's plan leaves in place the private health care system, but seeks to expand it to the uninsured," and "the plan is very different from some European-style health systems where the government owns health clinics and employs doctors." And during a March 26 online town hall, Obama explicitly rejected the notion of implementing a health care system "the way European countries do or Canada does," explaining that what "we should do is to build on the [employer-based] system that we have."
Congressional Budget Office: More enrollees in employer-provided insurance under House, Senate legislation than under current law. In both its July 26 analysis of the House tri-committee draft bill and its July 2 preliminary score of the Senate health committee bill, CBO found that more people would be enrolled in employer-based insurance under the bills than under current law in every year CBO examined following the legislation's implementation.
Conservative media predictably cry "socialized medicine" about 2009 reform

Conservatives cite Reagan's anti-"socialized medicine" recording to fearmonger about health reform. On August 14, the Drudge Report, Rush Limbaugh, and O'Reilly Factor guest host Laura Ingraham featured a recording of Ronald Reagan speaking in 1961 against "socialized medicine" for the American Medical Association's "Operation Coffeecup" campaign. Neither Drudge, nor Limbaugh, nor Ingraham, however, noted that Reagan was speaking out against a legislative precursor to Medicare, which has become very popular since it was enacted 44 years ago, or that Reagan's dire predictions of curtailments of freedom were never realized.
Conservative media figures repeatedly invoke socialism in stating their opposition to health reform. Numerous conservative media figures have revived the "socialized medicine" smear or raised the specter of socialism in their discussions of Democratic health care reform proposals. Examples include:
  • In a May 8 Wall Street Journal op-ed headlined, "Republicans and ObamaCare," editorial board member Kimberley A. Strassel trotted out the falsehood that Obama is on a "drive to socialize health care." [The Wall Street Journal, 5/8/09]
  • During the July 18 edition of Fox News' Bulls & Bears, host Brenda Buttner asked if health care proposals take us "one step closer to United Socialist States of America." [Bulls & Bears, 7/18/09]
  • During the July 21 edition of Glenn Beck's Fox News program, Beck claimed that health care reform is "good old socialism ... raping the pocketbooks of the rich to give to the poor." [Glenn Beck, 7/21/09]
  • The July 23 edition of Sean Hannity's Fox News show -- billed as a "Universal Nightmare" special edition -- relied on distortions and falsehoods to raise the specter of "socialized medicine." [Hannity, 7/23/09]
  • During the August 17 edition of his Fox News program, Bill O'Reilly claimed that the public option debate is really "about socialism," for which he claimed Howard Dean and Paul Krugman are "poster boys." [The O'Reilly Factor, 8/17/09]
Numerous media figures baselessly link Obama's reform efforts to Canadian, British health care systems. Despite Obama's explicit rejection on March 26 of implementing health care systems like those of Canada or the United Kingdom, media figures have continued to link Democratic reform efforts to such systems. Examples include:
  • During the March 26 edition of his Fox News program, Hannity claimed that Obama "wants to lay down $634 billion for nationalized health care. Well, we've had nationalized health care in Great Britain, and we've had it in France, and we've had it -- single-payer in Canada." Interviewing European Parliament member Daniel Hannan, Hannity later asserted, "So your advice to America is stay away from nationalized health care." [Hannity, 3/26/09]
  • During the April 24 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Bret Baier, White House correspondent Wendell Goler cropped a comment by Obama and took it out of context -- effectively reversing the statement's meaning -- to falsely suggest that Obama supports creating a health care system "like the European countries." Goler claimed that Obama "doesn't want to do it halfway" on health care and then aired a clip from the March 26 online town hall event of Obama saying, "If you're going to fix it, why not do a universal health care system like the European countries?" Following the clip, Goler reported: "His critics worry universal health care would mean government-run health care." In fact, Obama was paraphrasing the question he had just been asked before explaining why he opposed such a system. [Special Report, 4/24/09]
  • On the April 27 edition of Special Report, chief political correspondent Carl Cameron falsely suggested that Obama has proposed a nationalized health care system similar to those of the United Kingdom and Canada when he asserted: "The battle is already one of this year's most polarizing and partisan. Conservatives for Patients' Rights launched a new ad with British and Canadian doctors warning Americans about the perils of nationalized health care." [Special Report, 4/27/09]
  • In an April 30 Wall Street Journal column, Fox News contributor Karl Rove took Obama's March 26 quote out of context and reversed it's meaning, writing that, in 2008, the Obama campaign "ran ads attacking 'government-run health care' as 'extreme.' Now Mr. Obama is asking, as he did at a townhall meeting last month, 'Why not do a universal health care system like the European countries?' " [Wall Street Journal, 4/30/09]
  • On the June 29 edition of Special Report, host Bret Baier falsely suggested that Obama has cited Canada's medical system as a "possible model" for his health care reform plan. [Special Report, 6/29/09]
  • A July 18 Associated Press article by Charles Babington uncritically repeated the baseless charge that "Obama would push" the United States "into a Canada-like [health care] system." [AP, 7/18/09]
Opponents have used "socialized medicine" smear for 75 years

Smear dates back to 1930s. A Media Matters analysis found that dating as far back as the 1930s -- with respect to at least 16 different reform initiatives -- conservatives have attempted to smear those proposals by calling them "socialized medicine" or a step toward that inevitable result. These reform efforts include President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's consideration of government health insurance when crafting the 1935 Social Security bill; President Lyndon Johnson's 1965 amendment to the Social Security Act establishing Medicare; President Bill Clinton and first lady Hillary Clinton's health-care initiative in 1993 and 1994; the creation of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) in 1997, as well as its 2007 reauthorization and 2009 expansion; Barack Obama's and Hillary Clinton's health-care proposals during the 2008 presidential campaign; health information technology provisions included in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009; and health-care provisions included in President Obama's fiscal year 2010 budget blueprint.
Roosevelt's consideration of government health insurance when crafting the 1935 Social Security bill
  • A January 3, 1935, New York Times article (purchase required), "Doctors in Debate on Social Medicine," reported that during a "discussion on the socialization of medicine," the editor of The Journal of the American Medical Association, Dr. Morris Fishbein, "attacked the general proposal of socialization" and "ridicul[ed] the Roosevelt administration's attempts to evolve a plan of socialized medicine." Fishbein also reportedly said that the "American Medical Association [AMA] was strongly opposed to any scheme for group practice and to health insurance ... because they are un-American."
  • The New York Times reported in a February 16, 1935, article (purchase required), "Doctors Meet on 'Peril' in Security Plans; Illness Insurance Moves Stir Profession," that the AMA called a "special meeting" of its house of delegates due to "what some medical men have pronounced the most critical situation in the history of American medicine, brought about by President Roosevelt's social security program, and particularly by proposals of his advisers for compulsory insurance against the costs of sickness." The Times reported that the AMA asserted that "sickness-insurance plans ... are a step toward socialized medicine."
Truman's health-care reform proposal (the Wagner-Murray-Dingell bill)
  • The Harry S. Truman Library website states that "Truman's health proposals finally came to Congress in the form of a Social Security expansion bill, co-sponsored in Congress by Democratic senators Robert Wagner (N.Y.) and James Murray (Mont.), along with Representative John Dingell (D.-Mich). For this reason, the bill was known popularly as the W-M-D bill. The American Medical Association (AMA) launched a spirited attack against the bill, capitalizing on fears of Communism in the public mind. The AMA characterized the bill as 'socalized [sic] medicine', and in a forerunner to the rhetoric of the McCarthy era, called Truman White House staffers 'followers of the Moscow party line.' "
  • In The Social Transformation of American Medicine, discussing Truman's health-care proposal in Senate hearings, Paul Starr writes: "Senator Murray, the committee chairman, asked that the health bill not be described as socialistic or communistic. Interrupting, Senator Robert Taft of Ohio, the senior Republican, declared, 'I considered it socialism. It is to my mind the most socialistic measure this Congress has ever had before it.' Taft suggested that compulsory health insurance, like the full employment act, came right out of the Soviet constitution." [Page 283]
  • Starr further writes: "In May 1947 Senator Homer Ferguson accused the [Truman] administration of illicitly spending millions 'in behalf of a nationwide program of socialized medicine.' A House subcommittee investigating government propaganda for health insurance concluded that 'known Communists and fellow travelers within Federal agencies are at work diligently with Federal funds in furtherance of the Moscow party line.' " [Page 284]
  • Starr also writes that after Truman won re-election in 1948, "the AMA thought armageddon had come. It assessed each of its members an additional $25 just to resist health insurance and hired [public relations firm] Whitaker and Baxter to mount a public relations campaign that cost $1.5 million in 1949, at that time the most expensive lobbying effort in American history. ... 'Would socialized medicine lead to socialization of other phases of American life?' asked one pamphlet, and it answered, 'Lenin thought so. He declared: "Socialized medicine is the keystone to the arch of the Socialist state." ' (The Library of Congress could not locate this quotation in Lenin's writings.) So successful was the campaign in linking health insurance with socialism that even people who supported Truman's plan identified it as 'socialized medicine,' despite the administration's insistence it was not." [Page 284-285]
  • An April 14, 1950, Washington Post article (purchase required), "Dewey Views Truman Plans As Dangerous," reported that New York Gov. Thomas E. Dewey, a two-time Republican presidential nominee, said that the Truman administration's "compulsory health insurance plan" was " 'socialized medicine.' "
Kennedy's health-care reform proposal (the Anderson-King bill)
  • In a February 12, 1961, article (purchase required), "Fight Looms Over Medical Plan," about President John F. Kennedy's call for Congress "to set up a system of health insurance for the aged tied to Social Security," The New York Times reported, "One of the principal opposition arguments is that a Governmental system of health insurance opens the way for a form of socialized medicine."
  • A May 13, 1962, New York Times article (purchase required), "Fight Over New Aged Plan Grows Hotter," reported that in opposing the Anderson-King bill, the AMA "had been fighting back with cries of 'socialized medicine.' " The report also stated: "Stepping up its own campaign, the A.M.A. has issued a twelve-page booklet entitled 'The Case Against Socialized Medicine.' "
Johnson's 1965 amendment to the Social Security Act establishing Medicare
  • In a January 17, 1966 article (purchase required), "Insurers Ask What's Next in Medicare," The New York Times reported: "This discontent in the wake of the enactment of the Federal medicare program is not over the loss of at least part of the health-insurance business involving people over the age of 64. Rather, the insurance sellers are distressed at the thought that medicare has brought the nation a giant step closer to socialized medicine."
  • Reagan delivered an October 27, 1964, speech, "A Time for Choosing," supporting Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater against Johnson, the incumbent. In the speech, Reagan said, "Will you resist the temptation to get a government handout for your community? Realize that the doctor's fight against socialized medicine is your fight. We can't socialize the doctors without socializing the patients. Recognize that government invasion of public power is eventually an assault upon your own business." (The Greatest Speeches of Ronald Reagan; Page 3)
  • An August 17, 1992, analysis in the St. Petersburg Times by Ellen Debenport, "Bush resists action, distrusts change," noted that George H.W. Bush "opposed Medicare in 1964 as 'socialized medicine.' "
  • In a July 11, 1965, article on the passage of Medicare, "Now Medicare" (purchase required), The New York Times reported that "Medicare bills have been bouncing around Capitol Hill for years, but have run into strong opposition. The American Medical Association has lobbied against a Federal medical program on the ground it would be a step toward socialized medicine."
Clinton's 1992 campaign health-care proposal
  • In a September 28, 1992, editorial (retrieved from the Nexis database), The Orange County Register wrote that then-presidential candidate Bill Clinton's health-care proposal "resembles long-standing plans by congressional Democrats to impose a version of socialized medicine in America."
  • An August 5, 1992, New York Times article, "THE 1992 CAMPAIGN: Issues -- Health Care; G.O.P. Tries to Seize a Democratic Issue," reported that President George H.W. Bush "tried to paint as socialistic" Clinton's health-care proposals. The Times continued: "Accusing Mr. Clinton of advocating socialized medicine -- although he does not -- Kevin Moley, Deputy Secretary of Health and Human Services, called elements of the Clinton plan 'oxymoronic, with the accent on the 'moronic.' "
  • In an August 6, 1992, article, "Health care: Plenty of politics but few answers" (from Nexis), USA Today reported that "Bush maintains that Clinton is pushing socialized medicine." The article continued: "Clinton ... has a plan that isn't really, as critics charge, 'back door' national health insurance."
  • In an October 18, 1992, article, "THE 1992 CAMPAIGN: ISSUES -- Health Care; Bush and Clinton Aren't Saying It, But Health-Care Taxes Are Likely," The New York Times reported that "Mr. Clinton has modified his proposal to deflect Republican charges that he favors socialized medicine" and that "Republicans pummeled him as an advocate of ... socialized medicine."
The Clintons' 1993 health-care initiative
  • On the December 16, 1993, edition (from Nexis) of Limbaugh's television show, Rush Limbaugh, which ran from 1992-1996, Limbaugh stated, "I don't have time to beat around the bush. The health-care plan as proposed by Mrs. Clinton is socialism. There's no soft way to peddle it. There is not other way to describe it."
  • On the December 27, 1993, edition (from Nexis) of Rush Limbaugh, Limbaugh said of President Clinton's health-care plan, "People have to oppose this philosophically." He added, "You can't let the agenda be set by the administration because socialized medicine is not the solution."
  • On the April 4, 1994, edition (from Nexis) of Rush Limbaugh, Limbaugh said of Clinton's plan, "this health-care plan is all about the destruction of the creation of wealth in America and the socialization of this country, and it won't work -- never has anywhere else -- and we're going to go to the mat here to see to it that they don't succeed."
  • In a September 29, 1993, Washington Post column, "Socialized Medicine In America" (from Nexis), Robert J. Samuelson asserted, "We have arrived at socialized medicine in America. I do not report this as either a good or bad event but simply as something that has happened with hardly anyone realizing it. This is the first result -- and probably the most important -- of the national health care debate launched last week by President Clinton. Our politics and economy will never again be the same."
  • An October 21, 2000, New York Times article, "For Mrs. Clinton, Health Plan Left Lessons and Questions," reported: "When Mrs. Clinton visited Congress in February 1993, Newt Gingrich, the Georgia Republican who was then minority whip, articulated the concerns that swamped the president's plan 19 months later. Mr. Gingrich said then that Mrs. Clinton's proposal looked like 'washed-over old-time bureaucratic liberalism, or centralized bureaucratic socialism.' "
  • In a November 27, 1992, article (purchase required), "House Democrats Dust Off Long-Stymied Agendas," the Los Angeles Times reported that "[Rep. Carlos J.] Moorhead [(R-CA)] said he opposes Clinton's health care reform proposal as 'socialized medicine.' "
  • A January 23, 1994, Washington Times article, "Dole calls for revival of Bentsen's health care plan" (from Nexis), reported that "former Housing Secretary Jack Kemp, in a well-received closing address to the RNC [Republican National Committee] yesterday, called Mr. Clinton's" health-care plan a " 'socialized medicine' proposal."
  • In a February 20, 1994, article, "Old Republican Fissures Feel Strain as Health Care Debate Grows" (from Nexis), The Washington Post reported that Sen. Phil Gramm (R-TX) said of Clinton's health-care plan: "If we can't offer a viable alternative to socialized medicine, then we don't have any excuse for existence."
  • In an October 20, 1994, article, "THE 1994 CAMPAIGN: PENNSYLVANIA SENATOR Struggle for the Senate; In Pennsylvania, Round 2 on Healt [sic]," The New York Times reported that then-Rep. Rick Santorum (R) "describes President Clinton's health proposal as 'socialized medicine' that the country repudiated."
Creation of SCHIP in 1997
  • In a February 18, 1997, column for The Star-Ledger of Newark, New Jersey, "GOP mustn't swallow bad medicine" (from Nexis), Tony Snow wrote that Republicans "must decide soon where they stand on the issue of socialized medicine," explaining that "President Clinton threw down the gauntlet in his State of the Union address, when he proposed guaranteeing health insurance for at least half of the 10 million American children who have none."
  • In a July 23, 1997, column, "NEA Convention Delegates Gather to Gloat," Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly wrote that the National Education Association (NEA) was "confident that Congress will pass the Kennedy-Hatch KidCare bill, a first step toward the single-payer socialized medicine system that the NEA has endorsed for years."
  • An August 26, 1997, Atlanta Journal-Constitution article, "THE TOBACCO BATTLE: Conservative man in middle" (from Nexis), noted that Sens. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and Orrin Hatch (R-UT) "sponsored an increase in the cigarette tax by 43 cents a pack to fund health insurance for about 5 million poor children." The article quoted Bradley Keena, "spokesman for the archconservative activist group the Free Congress Foundation," saying of Kennedy: "He wants socialized medicine, and he's working with Hatch on a first step. This is not the old Hatch."
Gore's 2000 campaign health-care plan
  • Appearing on the August 28, 2000, edition of CNN's Crossfire, then-Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ) said: "And if you like socialized medicine, you will love this government bureaucracy under [then-Vice President and Democratic presidential nominee] Al Gore that will actually cost seniors who get $500 a year in prescription drugs right now -- it will end up costing seniors more money and take away control from those seniors."
  • On the September 25, 2000, edition (from Nexis) of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, co-host Sean Hannity said: "And the other issue is Gore, $4.6 trillion -- the single largest expansion of government in American history, from universal preschool, now, to prescriptions to health care -- it is Socialism 101."
  • Right-wing pundit Ann Coulter attacked Gore on the October 3, 2000, edition (from Nexis) of CNBC's Rivera Live, saying: "Yeah, but the point is what Gore says, 'No, we can't have an across-the-board tax cut, but we can have an attract -- across-the-board socialist health care plan.' "
2001 Patients Bill of Rights
  • Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) wrote in an August 1, 2001, Health Care News article, "Bill of Rights ... or Federal Takeover of Medicine?": "Without question, the true goal of some in Congress is to create a system of socialized medicine. It's politically expedient to slap a 'patients' rights' label on legislation that simply leads us closer to a complete government takeover of medicine."
  • In an August 2, 2001, speech on the House floor, Paul urged his colleagues to "reject the phony Patients' Bill of Rights. ... We don't have to continue down the path of socialized medical care, especially in America where free markets have provided so much for so many."
Kerry's 2004 campaign health-care plan
  • On the September 9, 2004, edition of MSNBC's Scarborough Country, host Joe Scarborough claimed that Sen. John Kerry (MA), the Democratic presidential nominee at the time, "wants to socialize medicine," adding: "John Kerry ain't no bargain. You add up all that he wants to do, with socializing medicine -- he's talking about universal health care, with adding 40,000 new troops. It's a lot bigger deficits" (from Nexis).
  • On September 15, 2004, then-Sen. Gordon Smith (R-OR) released a statement attacking the "Kerry-Edwards health care plan," saying: "While they have been touting their move toward socialized medicine, Kerry and [then-Sen. John] Edwards [(D-NC), Kerry's running mate] have opposed serious reforms and improvements to the health care system throughout their careers."
MD's 2005 proposal requiring Wal-Mart to pay increased health benefits
  • As Media Matters noted, Limbaugh stated on the May 20, 2005, edition of The Rush Limbaugh Show that proposed legislation in Maryland, which would have required Wal-Mart to choose between increasing health benefits for employees or paying more into the state's Medicaid program, is "a vestige of fascism." Limbaugh added, "[T]hey're legislating socialism at the Maryland legislature."
2007 SCHIP reauthorization
  • During the October 16, 2007, broadcast of his radio show, discussing the debate over the reauthorization of SCHIP, Limbaugh stated that the media "have done everything they can to push this whole notion of socialized medicine, to rip the president as being heartless and cold and cruel to children. And yet -- see, this is why you gotta celebrate the new media, folks, and people like me."
  • During a speech given for WPHT-AM Philadelphia on October 11, 2007, Limbaugh said of SCHIP, "It's an expansion. And it's a stealth mechanism to put the tentacles of socialized medicine even deeper into society."
  • During the August 3, 2007, broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show, Limbaugh stated that "the SCHIP program ... is a stealth maneuver by the Democrats to take us further down the road to nationalized, socialized medicine, which will be an abject failure." He added, "It will not be free. You may not be paying for it yourself, but you'll also suffer in the kind of coverage that you get and treatment that you get."
  • An April 1, 2007, New York Times article, "Expanded Health Program for Children Causes Clash," reported: " 'The Children's Health Insurance Program has given Democrats a wide-open door for socialized medicine,' [Rep. Jack] Kingston [R-GA] said in an interview. But he added, 'The door was left open by Republicans, who were in the majority when we passed the original legislation in 1997.' "
  • An August 2, 2007, New York Times article, "House Passes Children's Health Plan 225-204," reported that "Representative Pete Sessions, Republican of Texas, said the bill embodied the Democrats' 'vision for the future: socialized medicine and Washington-run health care.' "
  • A September 26, 2007, Washington Post article, "House Passes Children's Health Bill; Despite Strong Republican Support, Threatened Veto Will Probably Stand," reported that "Republicans attacked the bill on multiple fronts, saying it would move the nation toward 'socialized medicine.' "
  • A September 28, 2007, New York Times article, "Senate Passes Children's Health Plan," noted that "Republican opponents of the bill, like Senators Judd Gregg of New Hampshire and John Cornyn of Texas, said it would be a big step toward socialized medicine."
  • An October 3, 2007, Associated Press article, "Bush vetoes child health insurance plan," reported that "Bush argued that the congressional plan would be a move toward socialized medicine by expanding the program to higher-income families."
2008 campaign health-care proposals by Obama and Clinton
  • On the January 25, 2008, edition of his morning radio update, Limbaugh cited a study showing that, in Limbaugh's words, "women will not get tested [for breast cancer] if they have to pay for it. He added, "Every liberal on the campaign trail has a plan to deliver free, socialized medicine, but no country on earth, folks, can possibly pay for every test for everybody without going bankrupt."
  • Discussing a Rocky Mountain News editorial about a single-payer plan under consideration in Colorado, Limbaugh stated on his radio show of September 17, 2007 -- the day then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton announced her health-care proposal -- "I'm getting to the bottom line, is that you have the single payer proponents. Tying this to Mrs. Clinton, she's a single payer advocate. The government's going to be the single payer. It's going to be socialized medicine, national health care."
  • A September 16, 2007, ABCNews.com article quoted Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney attacking Clinton's then-unannounced health-care policy at a campaign event in Iowa, saying: "The last thing we need is Hillarycare," and, "The last thing we need is socialized medicine."
  • On the December 19, 2007, edition of CNN's The Situation Room, host Wolf Blitzer interviewed Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani and said, "Quick couple of questions, and you can give me your honest answers, as you always do." Blitzer then asked Giuliani: "Has Hillary Clinton been a good senator for New York state?" After stating, "Not from my point of view," Giuliani falsely claimed that Clinton "want to move toward mandated government medicine, socialized medicine."

  • In a September 24, 2007, USA Today article, reporter Fredreka Schouten quoted Romney's charge that Clinton's health-care proposal is "a 'socialized medical plan.' "
  • On September 18, 2007, USA Today's Richard Wolf reported: "Republicans criticized Clinton's plan as heavy-handed. Rudy Giuliani's campaign called it the 'Clinton-Moore plan' after filmmaker Michael Moore, whose film Sicko lambastes the U.S. health care system and lauds government-run programs in other countries. Mitt Romney called it 'a European-style socialized medicine plan.' "
  • During the August 23, 2008, edition of Fox News' Cavuto on Business, guest Jonathan Hoenig, a regular panelist on Fox News' Cashin' In and managing member of Capitalistpig Asset Management LLC, falsely asserted that Obama and then-running mate Joe Biden "have made it very clear that they support socialized health care."
  • In an October 6, 2008, National Review Online column headlined "Take This and Run: Ten things the McCain campaign needs to do to win," Lisa Schiffren described Obama's health-care proposal as "state health care," writing: "Ask why Barack Obama wants to make us all wards of the state, with state health care. Is this a good moment to embrace 20th Century Socialism Lite, even if we are facing a year or two of belt tightening? Shouldn't the future be freer, with less state interference in our lives?"
  • A May 3, 2008, New York Times article, "Parsing McCain on the Democrats' Health Plans," noted that Sen. John McCain, then running for president, has repeatedly "inaccurately described the Democrats' health-care proposals, using language that evokes the specter of socialized medicine."
2009 SCHIP expansion
  • A February 4 New York Times article, "Obama Signs Children's Health Insurance Bill," reported that "Representative Steve King, Republican of Iowa, denounced the bill as 'a foundation stone for socialized medicine.' "
  • A January 30 Washington Times article, "Children's health bill clears Senate," reported that Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) said, "Democrats are making it clear that they intend to use our economic crisis to rush through their longtime liberal goals without public scrutiny or debate. ... This will increase burdens on taxpayers and take a significant step toward socialized medicine."
Health information technology provisions in 2009 economic recovery package
  • On the February 10 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom, co-host Megyn Kelly, speaking to Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), cited Betsy McCaughey's Bloomberg commentary in claiming that the health information technology language in Obama's economic recovery package "sounds dangerously like socialized medicine."
  • Radio host Martha Zoller, appearing on the February 15 edition of CNN Newsroom, claimed that her "biggest concern about socialized health care is a lot of those things are in the stimulus bill. There are a whole bunch of things in the stimulus bill relating to health care and it is about telling, especially older folks, that it's not going to be cost-effective to continue to treat them and Democrats have been scaring older folks for 15 years about Republicans taking away what they have."
  • In a February 25 American Spectator column, "Repeal Health Care Fascism," Peter Ferrara, who served in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations, wrote that the stimulus bill funds "a bureaucratic structure for the government to begin rationing the health care of the American people." Ferrara counseled "Republicans and conservatives" to "sponsor a new bill of their own proposing to repeal the health care rationing provisions of the supposed stimulus bill. They can then lead a national, populist, grassroots movement to force Congress to pass the bill, and President Obama to sign it, educating the public along way about the intractable problems of socialized medicine."
Obama's 2010 budget blueprint
  • During the February 27 edition of his morning radio update, Limbaugh mentioned the carbon cap-and-trade and tax provisions included in Obama's budget outline and stated, "The Obama budget also funds the relentless drive toward socialized medicine. And all that is just the beginning."
  • In a February 26 statement "[r]eacting to President Obama's budget blueprint," Rep. Glenn Thompson (R-PA) "vow[ed] to fight against socialized medicine," stating further: "On healthcare, I agree with the President that we need to get costs under control. I look forward to working with him by utilizing my 28 years of experience working with over 10,000 patients dealing with life altering conditions to accomplish that feat. I can also say without hesitation, that the quality of healthcare in this county is second to none -- and sacrificing quality to achieve these necessary reforms is not acceptable. A single payer, government run healthcare system is the worst possible way to achieve this goal."
  • Rep. John Fleming (R-LA) released a statement on February 26 claiming that Obama's budget "will move us even further down the path to universal health care. We are treading dangerously close to bureaucratic intervention in the exam room and I will not support any measure that leads to socialized medicine."
  • In a February 26 statement, Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) said of Obama's budget: "One such troubling provision is a tax increase to pay for the $635 billion included in the budget for health care 'reserve funds.' Health care reform is desperately needed in America, but I'm concerned that $635 billion will be a down payment on socialized medicine, causing the impersonal rationing of health care and destroying the doctor-patient relationship."
 
kanabis

kanabis

Well-Known Member
I have been living in Europe for many many years. I'm a legal alien in this country and did my paperwork before coming here and through the U.S. Embassy. It took me 8 months to receive my green card and thousands of dollars. I have been in the U.S. for about 8 years now. What attracted me to come to this country was the perspective of a capitalist system, you work hard and play hard! But what I found is the same bull shit if not worse. I find so many contradictions and rules that put in evidence the corrupt system and erase the word "freedom" from the dictionary.

Why did I decide to leave Europe? aside my wife wanted to come back home, I left because it has come too hard to survive as a small business owner. Social assistance has become a marketing tool to guarantee votes. Politicians come with new "social" bills trying to attract the attention and that's how they build their path to the power. I have always been self employed and gave employment up to 50 people with my construction company and I'm more than qualified to opinate. What Obama is trying is to emulate a European health care system. In theory, it works but it also has a price. Lazy people just abuse of social assistance and established rules, without mentioning the illegals, the arabs and all that scum from the eastern Europe. Guess who pays? the entrepreneurs, the work force ...the ones that are ambitious and who work for real. If that prop pass here, I predict that it will be even worse!

Of course, it sounds pretty good not having to worried about getting sick. In Europe if you are diagnosed with cancer, if you get hurt somehow or if you give birth, you have the option to go to a public hospital where you won't pay anything . If you have a private insurance, you can opt to go to a private clinic where the total of the bill is taking care by your insurance. However, a good good insurance does not cost more than 100 euros per month and per person, everybody qualifies unless you are really messed up. There is no collateral to pay or all this BS. You just don't have to worry about the money aspect. Basically, if you want to have your own room and a nurse checking on you every 5 minutes, you go private. If you can't afford it, you go public. The bottom line, you will receive health care no matter what.

The contra-propaganda will tell you that public hospital don't work, are messy, and do not offer a reliable service, blablabla... In my opinion, they are the best since most universities are involved and they often have the best equipment and best doctors. Both of my kids were born in a public hospital costing me $0 and the attention could not have been better. The kids were "tornados", when they were young and we had to run to the emergency in several occasion ... no question asked, no invoices, nothing! Once, I was involved in a car accident and broke 2 vertebras, I did not have to pay anything at all and got immediate attention. My wife (she's american) broke her leg snowboarding and was rushed to the hospital by helicopter, we never received a bill! My father died of cancer cpl years ago, when diagnosed, he was already on stage 4. For more than five years, he received public medical care as needed and at no cost, funny enough the public hospital where he went was the only structure near home and with the proper equipment for his treatment. Who can dare to tell me this is not better than what we have in the U.S.?

How does it works? if you are self employed, you pay a fixed amount every month depending your income but the minimum is about 200 euros. If you are employed and let's say you make 1000 euros per month, your employer will pay max. an extra 400 euros and you will pay another 75 euros from your check. In both cases, this grants free health care to your entire household. It will also cover, unemployment whether you are terminated or quit and your pension when you retire.

Comparing to the U.S., we pay more or less the same amount of taxes, worthless work comps are 10% more expensive than European S.S.. Unemployment is paid not by the government but by the employer, pensions are ridiculous and the labor laws (especially in California) are already a joke! So, we are already there, we pay even more but do not get any real assitance! The private insurance are the biggest scam ever. Even though, the medias and general belief still think we are number ones! Give me a break! get on a plane and go look around, you'll be surprised of these so called "third world".

I'm not aware of the circumstances since I avoid the TV, but if Obama require us to pay more money to get free health care, then it is a scam ... I say YES to free health care with the condition the taxes we already pay must be re-distributed but not increased.

Overall, there is more good than bad but it certainly depends on which perspective you are looking from. If you are an employee, it's a really good thing and you should go for it. As an employer and specially a small business owner, it can affect you already fucked up finances, so watch out!

Let's look at numbers ... if you get seriously sick, it is more than probable that you will have to spend hundreds of thousand dollars since your insurance will back down. You will refi or mortgage your house hoping your wife doesn't get sick too or that you get sick once! With universal health care, assuming you work 40 years and your monthly share is like $200 per month, that give us a total $96,000.


  • It still cheaper than any medical bill
  • You won't have to max out credit card or sell/mortgage your house
  • You or your dependent can get sick more than once, it doesn't matter
  • You don't need a private insurance

Personally, I'm over the controversy liberals/ conservative, democrats and republicans, Bush or Obama. People, wake up! don't you realise it's all the same? Yes, illegals and lazy "MF" will beneficiate from our contribution but I guess you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs. On a human standing point, I think that a medical carreer is a vocation to bring health to the People and should be not used with the purpose of accumulating unlimited wealth. So just to fuck with the actual HMO and the private health industry, I would say YES. Unfortunately, I can't vote!
 
jeffchr

jeffchr

Well-Known Member
nice post Kanabis. good to hear someone who actually has some experience with the debate alternatives. makes it real. thanks.
 
K

kappainf

Well-Known Member
Why do people think that the government should have more power and spend more money? This is the same government that will put your ass in jail for smoking pot. Even messiah Obama laughs at the notion of legalization.
 
Higher Education

Higher Education

Well-Known Member
ViRedd said:
Now wait just a second here! For a guy who goes by the name of "Higher Education," you are being WAY too logical. :lol:
Click to expand...
Haha, you're silly.

jeffchr said:
quoting the Poltergeist - really?

"Socialized medicine" smear is false

Progressive reform is not socialized medicine. The Urban Institute wrote in an April 2008 analysis that "socialized medicine involves government financing and direct provision of health care services," and explained that recent progressive health care reform proposals do not "fit this description." The analysis also noted, "Similar rhetoric was used to defeat national health care reform proposals in the 1990s and, with less success, to argue against the creation of Medicare in the 1960s."
Obama has not proposed socialized medicine, single payer, or nationalized health care. As PolitiFact.com noted in a March 5 post, "Obama's plan leaves in place the private health care system, but seeks to expand it to the uninsured," and "the plan is very different from some European-style health systems where the government owns health clinics and employs doctors." And during a March 26 online town hall, Obama explicitly rejected the notion of implementing a health care system "the way European countries do or Canada does," explaining that what "we should do is to build on the [employer-based] system that we have."
Congressional Budget Office: More enrollees in employer-provided insurance under House, Senate legislation than under current law. In both its July 26 analysis of the House tri-committee draft bill and its July 2 preliminary score of the Senate health committee bill, CBO found that more people would be enrolled in employer-based insurance under the bills than under current law in every year CBO examined following the legislation's implementation.
Conservative media predictably cry "socialized medicine" about 2009 reform

Conservatives cite Reagan's anti-"socialized medicine" recording to fearmonger about health reform. On August 14, the Drudge Report, Rush Limbaugh, and O'Reilly Factor guest host Laura Ingraham featured a recording of Ronald Reagan speaking in 1961 against "socialized medicine" for the American Medical Association's "Operation Coffeecup" campaign. Neither Drudge, nor Limbaugh, nor Ingraham, however, noted that Reagan was speaking out against a legislative precursor to Medicare, which has become very popular since it was enacted 44 years ago, or that Reagan's dire predictions of curtailments of freedom were never realized.

Conservative media figures repeatedly invoke socialism in stating their opposition to health reform. Numerous conservative media figures have revived the "socialized medicine" smear or raised the specter of socialism in their discussions of Democratic health care reform proposals. Examples include:
  • In a May 8 Wall Street Journal op-ed headlined, "Republicans and ObamaCare," editorial board member Kimberley A. Strassel trotted out the falsehood that Obama is on a "drive to socialize health care." [The Wall Street Journal, 5/8/09]
  • During the July 18 edition of Fox News' Bulls & Bears, host Brenda Buttner asked if health care proposals take us "one step closer to United Socialist States of America." [Bulls & Bears, 7/18/09]
  • During the July 21 edition of Glenn Beck's Fox News program, Beck claimed that health care reform is "good old socialism ... raping the pocketbooks of the rich to give to the poor." [Glenn Beck, 7/21/09]
  • The July 23 edition of Sean Hannity's Fox News show -- billed as a "Universal Nightmare" special edition -- relied on distortions and falsehoods to raise the specter of "socialized medicine." [Hannity, 7/23/09]
  • During the August 17 edition of his Fox News program, Bill O'Reilly claimed that the public option debate is really "about socialism," for which he claimed Howard Dean and Paul Krugman are "poster boys." [The O'Reilly Factor, 8/17/09]
Numerous media figures baselessly link Obama's reform efforts to Canadian, British health care systems. Despite Obama's explicit rejection on March 26 of implementing health care systems like those of Canada or the United Kingdom, media figures have continued to link Democratic reform efforts to such systems. Examples include:
  • During the March 26 edition of his Fox News program, Hannity claimed that Obama "wants to lay down $634 billion for nationalized health care. Well, we've had nationalized health care in Great Britain, and we've had it in France, and we've had it -- single-payer in Canada." Interviewing European Parliament member Daniel Hannan, Hannity later asserted, "So your advice to America is stay away from nationalized health care." [Hannity, 3/26/09]
  • During the April 24 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Bret Baier, White House correspondent Wendell Goler cropped a comment by Obama and took it out of context -- effectively reversing the statement's meaning -- to falsely suggest that Obama supports creating a health care system "like the European countries." Goler claimed that Obama "doesn't want to do it halfway" on health care and then aired a clip from the March 26 online town hall event of Obama saying, "If you're going to fix it, why not do a universal health care system like the European countries?" Following the clip, Goler reported: "His critics worry universal health care would mean government-run health care." In fact, Obama was paraphrasing the question he had just been asked before explaining why he opposed such a system. [Special Report, 4/24/09]
  • On the April 27 edition of Special Report, chief political correspondent Carl Cameron falsely suggested that Obama has proposed a nationalized health care system similar to those of the United Kingdom and Canada when he asserted: "The battle is already one of this year's most polarizing and partisan. Conservatives for Patients' Rights launched a new ad with British and Canadian doctors warning Americans about the perils of nationalized health care." [Special Report, 4/27/09]
  • In an April 30 Wall Street Journal column, Fox News contributor Karl Rove took Obama's March 26 quote out of context and reversed it's meaning, writing that, in 2008, the Obama campaign "ran ads attacking 'government-run health care' as 'extreme.' Now Mr. Obama is asking, as he did at a townhall meeting last month, 'Why not do a universal health care system like the European countries?' " [Wall Street Journal, 4/30/09]
  • On the June 29 edition of Special Report, host Bret Baier falsely suggested that Obama has cited Canada's medical system as a "possible model" for his health care reform plan. [Special Report, 6/29/09]
  • A July 18 Associated Press article by Charles Babington uncritically repeated the baseless charge that "Obama would push" the United States "into a Canada-like [health care] system." [AP, 7/18/09]
Opponents have used "socialized medicine" smear for 75 years

Smear dates back to 1930s. A Media Matters analysis found that dating as far back as the 1930s -- with respect to at least 16 different reform initiatives -- conservatives have attempted to smear those proposals by calling them "socialized medicine" or a step toward that inevitable result. These reform efforts include President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's consideration of government health insurance when crafting the 1935 Social Security bill; President Lyndon Johnson's 1965 amendment to the Social Security Act establishing Medicare; President Bill Clinton and first lady Hillary Clinton's health-care initiative in 1993 and 1994; the creation of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) in 1997, as well as its 2007 reauthorization and 2009 expansion; Barack Obama's and Hillary Clinton's health-care proposals during the 2008 presidential campaign; health information technology provisions included in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009; and health-care provisions included in President Obama's fiscal year 2010 budget blueprint.

Roosevelt's consideration of government health insurance when crafting the 1935 Social Security bill
  • A January 3, 1935, New York Times article (purchase required), "Doctors in Debate on Social Medicine," reported that during a "discussion on the socialization of medicine," the editor of The Journal of the American Medical Association, Dr. Morris Fishbein, "attacked the general proposal of socialization" and "ridicul[ed] the Roosevelt administration's attempts to evolve a plan of socialized medicine." Fishbein also reportedly said that the "American Medical Association [AMA] was strongly opposed to any scheme for group practice and to health insurance ... because they are un-American."
  • The New York Times reported in a February 16, 1935, article (purchase required), "Doctors Meet on 'Peril' in Security Plans; Illness Insurance Moves Stir Profession," that the AMA called a "special meeting" of its house of delegates due to "what some medical men have pronounced the most critical situation in the history of American medicine, brought about by President Roosevelt's social security program, and particularly by proposals of his advisers for compulsory insurance against the costs of sickness." The Times reported that the AMA asserted that "sickness-insurance plans ... are a step toward socialized medicine."
Truman's health-care reform proposal (the Wagner-Murray-Dingell bill)
  • The Harry S. Truman Library website states that "Truman's health proposals finally came to Congress in the form of a Social Security expansion bill, co-sponsored in Congress by Democratic senators Robert Wagner (N.Y.) and James Murray (Mont.), along with Representative John Dingell (D.-Mich). For this reason, the bill was known popularly as the W-M-D bill. The American Medical Association (AMA) launched a spirited attack against the bill, capitalizing on fears of Communism in the public mind. The AMA characterized the bill as 'socalized [sic] medicine', and in a forerunner to the rhetoric of the McCarthy era, called Truman White House staffers 'followers of the Moscow party line.' "
  • In The Social Transformation of American Medicine, discussing Truman's health-care proposal in Senate hearings, Paul Starr writes: "Senator Murray, the committee chairman, asked that the health bill not be described as socialistic or communistic. Interrupting, Senator Robert Taft of Ohio, the senior Republican, declared, 'I considered it socialism. It is to my mind the most socialistic measure this Congress has ever had before it.' Taft suggested that compulsory health insurance, like the full employment act, came right out of the Soviet constitution." [Page 283]
  • Starr further writes: "In May 1947 Senator Homer Ferguson accused the [Truman] administration of illicitly spending millions 'in behalf of a nationwide program of socialized medicine.' A House subcommittee investigating government propaganda for health insurance concluded that 'known Communists and fellow travelers within Federal agencies are at work diligently with Federal funds in furtherance of the Moscow party line.' " [Page 284]
  • Starr also writes that after Truman won re-election in 1948, "the AMA thought armageddon had come. It assessed each of its members an additional $25 just to resist health insurance and hired [public relations firm] Whitaker and Baxter to mount a public relations campaign that cost $1.5 million in 1949, at that time the most expensive lobbying effort in American history. ... 'Would socialized medicine lead to socialization of other phases of American life?' asked one pamphlet, and it answered, 'Lenin thought so. He declared: "Socialized medicine is the keystone to the arch of the Socialist state." ' (The Library of Congress could not locate this quotation in Lenin's writings.) So successful was the campaign in linking health insurance with socialism that even people who supported Truman's plan identified it as 'socialized medicine,' despite the administration's insistence it was not." [Page 284-285]
  • An April 14, 1950, Washington Post article (purchase required), "Dewey Views Truman Plans As Dangerous," reported that New York Gov. Thomas E. Dewey, a two-time Republican presidential nominee, said that the Truman administration's "compulsory health insurance plan" was " 'socialized medicine.' "
Kennedy's health-care reform proposal (the Anderson-King bill)
  • In a February 12, 1961, article (purchase required), "Fight Looms Over Medical Plan," about President John F. Kennedy's call for Congress "to set up a system of health insurance for the aged tied to Social Security," The New York Times reported, "One of the principal opposition arguments is that a Governmental system of health insurance opens the way for a form of socialized medicine."
  • A May 13, 1962, New York Times article (purchase required), "Fight Over New Aged Plan Grows Hotter," reported that in opposing the Anderson-King bill, the AMA "had been fighting back with cries of 'socialized medicine.' " The report also stated: "Stepping up its own campaign, the A.M.A. has issued a twelve-page booklet entitled 'The Case Against Socialized Medicine.' "
Johnson's 1965 amendment to the Social Security Act establishing Medicare
  • In a January 17, 1966 article (purchase required), "Insurers Ask What's Next in Medicare," The New York Times reported: "This discontent in the wake of the enactment of the Federal medicare program is not over the loss of at least part of the health-insurance business involving people over the age of 64. Rather, the insurance sellers are distressed at the thought that medicare has brought the nation a giant step closer to socialized medicine."
  • Reagan delivered an October 27, 1964, speech, "A Time for Choosing," supporting Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater against Johnson, the incumbent. In the speech, Reagan said, "Will you resist the temptation to get a government handout for your community? Realize that the doctor's fight against socialized medicine is your fight. We can't socialize the doctors without socializing the patients. Recognize that government invasion of public power is eventually an assault upon your own business." (The Greatest Speeches of Ronald Reagan; Page 3)
  • An August 17, 1992, analysis in the St. Petersburg Times by Ellen Debenport, "Bush resists action, distrusts change," noted that George H.W. Bush "opposed Medicare in 1964 as 'socialized medicine.' "
  • In a July 11, 1965, article on the passage of Medicare, "Now Medicare" (purchase required), The New York Times reported that "Medicare bills have been bouncing around Capitol Hill for years, but have run into strong opposition. The American Medical Association has lobbied against a Federal medical program on the ground it would be a step toward socialized medicine."
Clinton's 1992 campaign health-care proposal
  • In a September 28, 1992, editorial (retrieved from the Nexis database), The Orange County Register wrote that then-presidential candidate Bill Clinton's health-care proposal "resembles long-standing plans by congressional Democrats to impose a version of socialized medicine in America."
  • An August 5, 1992, New York Times article, "THE 1992 CAMPAIGN: Issues -- Health Care; G.O.P. Tries to Seize a Democratic Issue," reported that President George H.W. Bush "tried to paint as socialistic" Clinton's health-care proposals. The Times continued: "Accusing Mr. Clinton of advocating socialized medicine -- although he does not -- Kevin Moley, Deputy Secretary of Health and Human Services, called elements of the Clinton plan 'oxymoronic, with the accent on the 'moronic.' "
  • In an August 6, 1992, article, "Health care: Plenty of politics but few answers" (from Nexis), USA Today reported that "Bush maintains that Clinton is pushing socialized medicine." The article continued: "Clinton ... has a plan that isn't really, as critics charge, 'back door' national health insurance."
  • In an October 18, 1992, article, "THE 1992 CAMPAIGN: ISSUES -- Health Care; Bush and Clinton Aren't Saying It, But Health-Care Taxes Are Likely," The New York Times reported that "Mr. Clinton has modified his proposal to deflect Republican charges that he favors socialized medicine" and that "Republicans pummeled him as an advocate of ... socialized medicine."
The Clintons' 1993 health-care initiative
  • On the December 16, 1993, edition (from Nexis) of Limbaugh's television show, Rush Limbaugh, which ran from 1992-1996, Limbaugh stated, "I don't have time to beat around the bush. The health-care plan as proposed by Mrs. Clinton is socialism. There's no soft way to peddle it. There is not other way to describe it."
  • On the December 27, 1993, edition (from Nexis) of Rush Limbaugh, Limbaugh said of President Clinton's health-care plan, "People have to oppose this philosophically." He added, "You can't let the agenda be set by the administration because socialized medicine is not the solution."
  • On the April 4, 1994, edition (from Nexis) of Rush Limbaugh, Limbaugh said of Clinton's plan, "this health-care plan is all about the destruction of the creation of wealth in America and the socialization of this country, and it won't work -- never has anywhere else -- and we're going to go to the mat here to see to it that they don't succeed."
  • In a September 29, 1993, Washington Post column, "Socialized Medicine In America" (from Nexis), Robert J. Samuelson asserted, "We have arrived at socialized medicine in America. I do not report this as either a good or bad event but simply as something that has happened with hardly anyone realizing it. This is the first result -- and probably the most important -- of the national health care debate launched last week by President Clinton. Our politics and economy will never again be the same."
  • An October 21, 2000, New York Times article, "For Mrs. Clinton, Health Plan Left Lessons and Questions," reported: "When Mrs. Clinton visited Congress in February 1993, Newt Gingrich, the Georgia Republican who was then minority whip, articulated the concerns that swamped the president's plan 19 months later. Mr. Gingrich said then that Mrs. Clinton's proposal looked like 'washed-over old-time bureaucratic liberalism, or centralized bureaucratic socialism.' "
  • In a November 27, 1992, article (purchase required), "House Democrats Dust Off Long-Stymied Agendas," the Los Angeles Times reported that "[Rep. Carlos J.] Moorhead [(R-CA)] said he opposes Clinton's health care reform proposal as 'socialized medicine.' "
  • A January 23, 1994, Washington Times article, "Dole calls for revival of Bentsen's health care plan" (from Nexis), reported that "former Housing Secretary Jack Kemp, in a well-received closing address to the RNC [Republican National Committee] yesterday, called Mr. Clinton's" health-care plan a " 'socialized medicine' proposal."
  • In a February 20, 1994, article, "Old Republican Fissures Feel Strain as Health Care Debate Grows" (from Nexis), The Washington Post reported that Sen. Phil Gramm (R-TX) said of Clinton's health-care plan: "If we can't offer a viable alternative to socialized medicine, then we don't have any excuse for existence."
  • In an October 20, 1994, article, "THE 1994 CAMPAIGN: PENNSYLVANIA SENATOR Struggle for the Senate; In Pennsylvania, Round 2 on Healt [sic]," The New York Times reported that then-Rep. Rick Santorum (R) "describes President Clinton's health proposal as 'socialized medicine' that the country repudiated."
Creation of SCHIP in 1997
  • In a February 18, 1997, column for The Star-Ledger of Newark, New Jersey, "GOP mustn't swallow bad medicine" (from Nexis), Tony Snow wrote that Republicans "must decide soon where they stand on the issue of socialized medicine," explaining that "President Clinton threw down the gauntlet in his State of the Union address, when he proposed guaranteeing health insurance for at least half of the 10 million American children who have none."
  • In a July 23, 1997, column, "NEA Convention Delegates Gather to Gloat," Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly wrote that the National Education Association (NEA) was "confident that Congress will pass the Kennedy-Hatch KidCare bill, a first step toward the single-payer socialized medicine system that the NEA has endorsed for years."
  • An August 26, 1997, Atlanta Journal-Constitution article, "THE TOBACCO BATTLE: Conservative man in middle" (from Nexis), noted that Sens. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and Orrin Hatch (R-UT) "sponsored an increase in the cigarette tax by 43 cents a pack to fund health insurance for about 5 million poor children." The article quoted Bradley Keena, "spokesman for the archconservative activist group the Free Congress Foundation," saying of Kennedy: "He wants socialized medicine, and he's working with Hatch on a first step. This is not the old Hatch."
Gore's 2000 campaign health-care plan
  • Appearing on the August 28, 2000, edition of CNN's Crossfire, then-Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ) said: "And if you like socialized medicine, you will love this government bureaucracy under [then-Vice President and Democratic presidential nominee] Al Gore that will actually cost seniors who get $500 a year in prescription drugs right now -- it will end up costing seniors more money and take away control from those seniors."
  • On the September 25, 2000, edition (from Nexis) of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, co-host Sean Hannity said: "And the other issue is Gore, $4.6 trillion -- the single largest expansion of government in American history, from universal preschool, now, to prescriptions to health care -- it is Socialism 101."
  • Right-wing pundit Ann Coulter attacked Gore on the October 3, 2000, edition (from Nexis) of CNBC's Rivera Live, saying: "Yeah, but the point is what Gore says, 'No, we can't have an across-the-board tax cut, but we can have an attract -- across-the-board socialist health care plan.' "
2001 Patients Bill of Rights
  • Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) wrote in an August 1, 2001, Health Care News article, "Bill of Rights ... or Federal Takeover of Medicine?": "Without question, the true goal of some in Congress is to create a system of socialized medicine. It's politically expedient to slap a 'patients' rights' label on legislation that simply leads us closer to a complete government takeover of medicine."
  • In an August 2, 2001, speech on the House floor, Paul urged his colleagues to "reject the phony Patients' Bill of Rights. ... We don't have to continue down the path of socialized medical care, especially in America where free markets have provided so much for so many."
Kerry's 2004 campaign health-care plan
  • On the September 9, 2004, edition of MSNBC's Scarborough Country, host Joe Scarborough claimed that Sen. John Kerry (MA), the Democratic presidential nominee at the time, "wants to socialize medicine," adding: "John Kerry ain't no bargain. You add up all that he wants to do, with socializing medicine -- he's talking about universal health care, with adding 40,000 new troops. It's a lot bigger deficits" (from Nexis).
  • On September 15, 2004, then-Sen. Gordon Smith (R-OR) released a statement attacking the "Kerry-Edwards health care plan," saying: "While they have been touting their move toward socialized medicine, Kerry and [then-Sen. John] Edwards [(D-NC), Kerry's running mate] have opposed serious reforms and improvements to the health care system throughout their careers."
MD's 2005 proposal requiring Wal-Mart to pay increased health benefits
  • As Media Matters noted, Limbaugh stated on the May 20, 2005, edition of The Rush Limbaugh Show that proposed legislation in Maryland, which would have required Wal-Mart to choose between increasing health benefits for employees or paying more into the state's Medicaid program, is "a vestige of fascism." Limbaugh added, "[T]hey're legislating socialism at the Maryland legislature."
2007 SCHIP reauthorization
  • During the October 16, 2007, broadcast of his radio show, discussing the debate over the reauthorization of SCHIP, Limbaugh stated that the media "have done everything they can to push this whole notion of socialized medicine, to rip the president as being heartless and cold and cruel to children. And yet -- see, this is why you gotta celebrate the new media, folks, and people like me."
  • During a speech given for WPHT-AM Philadelphia on October 11, 2007, Limbaugh said of SCHIP, "It's an expansion. And it's a stealth mechanism to put the tentacles of socialized medicine even deeper into society."
  • During the August 3, 2007, broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show, Limbaugh stated that "the SCHIP program ... is a stealth maneuver by the Democrats to take us further down the road to nationalized, socialized medicine, which will be an abject failure." He added, "It will not be free. You may not be paying for it yourself, but you'll also suffer in the kind of coverage that you get and treatment that you get."
  • An April 1, 2007, New York Times article, "Expanded Health Program for Children Causes Clash," reported: " 'The Children's Health Insurance Program has given Democrats a wide-open door for socialized medicine,' [Rep. Jack] Kingston [R-GA] said in an interview. But he added, 'The door was left open by Republicans, who were in the majority when we passed the original legislation in 1997.' "
  • An August 2, 2007, New York Times article, "House Passes Children's Health Plan 225-204," reported that "Representative Pete Sessions, Republican of Texas, said the bill embodied the Democrats' 'vision for the future: socialized medicine and Washington-run health care.' "
  • A September 26, 2007, Washington Post article, "House Passes Children's Health Bill; Despite Strong Republican Support, Threatened Veto Will Probably Stand," reported that "Republicans attacked the bill on multiple fronts, saying it would move the nation toward 'socialized medicine.' "
  • A September 28, 2007, New York Times article, "Senate Passes Children's Health Plan," noted that "Republican opponents of the bill, like Senators Judd Gregg of New Hampshire and John Cornyn of Texas, said it would be a big step toward socialized medicine."
  • An October 3, 2007, Associated Press article, "Bush vetoes child health insurance plan," reported that "Bush argued that the congressional plan would be a move toward socialized medicine by expanding the program to higher-income families."
2008 campaign health-care proposals by Obama and Clinton
  • On the January 25, 2008, edition of his morning radio update, Limbaugh cited a study showing that, in Limbaugh's words, "women will not get tested [for breast cancer] if they have to pay for it. He added, "Every liberal on the campaign trail has a plan to deliver free, socialized medicine, but no country on earth, folks, can possibly pay for every test for everybody without going bankrupt."
  • Discussing a Rocky Mountain News editorial about a single-payer plan under consideration in Colorado, Limbaugh stated on his radio show of September 17, 2007 -- the day then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton announced her health-care proposal -- "I'm getting to the bottom line, is that you have the single payer proponents. Tying this to Mrs. Clinton, she's a single payer advocate. The government's going to be the single payer. It's going to be socialized medicine, national health care."
  • A September 16, 2007, ABCNews.com article quoted Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney attacking Clinton's then-unannounced health-care policy at a campaign event in Iowa, saying: "The last thing we need is Hillarycare," and, "The last thing we need is socialized medicine."
  • On the December 19, 2007, edition of CNN's The Situation Room, host Wolf Blitzer interviewed Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani and said, "Quick couple of questions, and you can give me your honest answers, as you always do." Blitzer then asked Giuliani: "Has Hillary Clinton been a good senator for New York state?" After stating, "Not from my point of view," Giuliani falsely claimed that Clinton "want to move toward mandated government medicine, socialized medicine."

  • In a September 24, 2007, USA Today article, reporter Fredreka Schouten quoted Romney's charge that Clinton's health-care proposal is "a 'socialized medical plan.' "
  • On September 18, 2007, USA Today's Richard Wolf reported: "Republicans criticized Clinton's plan as heavy-handed. Rudy Giuliani's campaign called it the 'Clinton-Moore plan' after filmmaker Michael Moore, whose film Sicko lambastes the U.S. health care system and lauds government-run programs in other countries. Mitt Romney called it 'a European-style socialized medicine plan.' "
  • During the August 23, 2008, edition of Fox News' Cavuto on Business, guest Jonathan Hoenig, a regular panelist on Fox News' Cashin' In and managing member of Capitalistpig Asset Management LLC, falsely asserted that Obama and then-running mate Joe Biden "have made it very clear that they support socialized health care."
  • In an October 6, 2008, National Review Online column headlined "Take This and Run: Ten things the McCain campaign needs to do to win," Lisa Schiffren described Obama's health-care proposal as "state health care," writing: "Ask why Barack Obama wants to make us all wards of the state, with state health care. Is this a good moment to embrace 20th Century Socialism Lite, even if we are facing a year or two of belt tightening? Shouldn't the future be freer, with less state interference in our lives?"
  • A May 3, 2008, New York Times article, "Parsing McCain on the Democrats' Health Plans," noted that Sen. John McCain, then running for president, has repeatedly "inaccurately described the Democrats' health-care proposals, using language that evokes the specter of socialized medicine."
2009 SCHIP expansion
  • A February 4 New York Times article, "Obama Signs Children's Health Insurance Bill," reported that "Representative Steve King, Republican of Iowa, denounced the bill as 'a foundation stone for socialized medicine.' "
  • A January 30 Washington Times article, "Children's health bill clears Senate," reported that Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) said, "Democrats are making it clear that they intend to use our economic crisis to rush through their longtime liberal goals without public scrutiny or debate. ... This will increase burdens on taxpayers and take a significant step toward socialized medicine."
Health information technology provisions in 2009 economic recovery package
  • On the February 10 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom, co-host Megyn Kelly, speaking to Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), cited Betsy McCaughey's Bloomberg commentary in claiming that the health information technology language in Obama's economic recovery package "sounds dangerously like socialized medicine."
  • Radio host Martha Zoller, appearing on the February 15 edition of CNN Newsroom, claimed that her "biggest concern about socialized health care is a lot of those things are in the stimulus bill. There are a whole bunch of things in the stimulus bill relating to health care and it is about telling, especially older folks, that it's not going to be cost-effective to continue to treat them and Democrats have been scaring older folks for 15 years about Republicans taking away what they have."
  • In a February 25 American Spectator column, "Repeal Health Care Fascism," Peter Ferrara, who served in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations, wrote that the stimulus bill funds "a bureaucratic structure for the government to begin rationing the health care of the American people." Ferrara counseled "Republicans and conservatives" to "sponsor a new bill of their own proposing to repeal the health care rationing provisions of the supposed stimulus bill. They can then lead a national, populist, grassroots movement to force Congress to pass the bill, and President Obama to sign it, educating the public along way about the intractable problems of socialized medicine."
Obama's 2010 budget blueprint
  • During the February 27 edition of his morning radio update, Limbaugh mentioned the carbon cap-and-trade and tax provisions included in Obama's budget outline and stated, "The Obama budget also funds the relentless drive toward socialized medicine. And all that is just the beginning."
  • In a February 26 statement "[r]eacting to President Obama's budget blueprint," Rep. Glenn Thompson (R-PA) "vow[ed] to fight against socialized medicine," stating further: "On healthcare, I agree with the President that we need to get costs under control. I look forward to working with him by utilizing my 28 years of experience working with over 10,000 patients dealing with life altering conditions to accomplish that feat. I can also say without hesitation, that the quality of healthcare in this county is second to none -- and sacrificing quality to achieve these necessary reforms is not acceptable. A single payer, government run healthcare system is the worst possible way to achieve this goal."
  • Rep. John Fleming (R-LA) released a statement on February 26 claiming that Obama's budget "will move us even further down the path to universal health care. We are treading dangerously close to bureaucratic intervention in the exam room and I will not support any measure that leads to socialized medicine."
  • In a February 26 statement, Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) said of Obama's budget: "One such troubling provision is a tax increase to pay for the $635 billion included in the budget for health care 'reserve funds.' Health care reform is desperately needed in America, but I'm concerned that $635 billion will be a down payment on socialized medicine, causing the impersonal rationing of health care and destroying the doctor-patient relationship."
Click to expand...


kappainf said:
Why do people think that the government should have more power and spend more money? This is the same government that will put your ass in jail for smoking pot. Even messiah Obama laughs at the notion of legalization.
Click to expand...


Progressive Reform is a more friendly word for Socialized Medicine. There are literally hundreds of pages of exceptions in the 2,000 page bill that Obama is pushing congress to pass that puts more power into the governments hands and less into that of the people.

Let us quote someone is less of a poltergeist for you. Shawn Tully, the financial editor at CNN, or as I like to call it, the Clinton News Network.

5 freedoms you'd lose in health care reform

If you read the fine print in the Congressional plans, you'll find that a lot of cherished aspects of the current system would disappear


NEW YORK (Fortune) -- In promoting his health-care agenda, President Obama has repeatedly reassured Americans that they can keep their existing health plans -- and that the benefits and access they prize will be enhanced through reform.
A close reading of the two main bills, one backed by Democrats in the House and the other issued by Sen. Edward Kennedy's Health committee, contradict the President's assurances. To be sure, it isn't easy to comb through their 2,000 pages of tortured legal language. But page by page, the bills reveal a web of restrictions, fines, and mandates that would radically change your health-care coverage.
If you prize choosing your own cardiologist or urologist under your company's Preferred Provider Organization plan (PPO), if your employer rewards your non-smoking, healthy lifestyle with reduced premiums, if you love the bargain Health Savings Account (HSA) that insures you just for the essentials, or if you simply take comfort in the freedom to spend your own money for a policy that covers the newest drugs and diagnostic tests -- you may be shocked to learn that you could lose all of those good things under the rules proposed in the two bills that herald a health-care revolution.
In short, the Obama platform would mandate extremely full, expensive, and highly subsidized coverage -- including a lot of benefits people would never pay for with their own money -- but deliver it through a highly restrictive, HMO-style plan that will determine what care and tests you can and can't have. It's a revolution, all right, but in the wrong direction.
Let's explore the five freedoms that Americans would lose under Obamacare:
1. Freedom to choose what's in your plan
The bills in both houses require that Americans purchase insurance through "qualified" plans offered by health-care "exchanges" that would be set up in each state. The rub is that the plans can't really compete based on what they offer. The reason: The federal government will impose a minimum list of benefits that each plan is required to offer.

Today, many states require these "standard benefits packages" -- and they're a major cause for the rise in health-care costs. Every group, from chiropractors to alcohol-abuse counselors, do lobbying to get included. Connecticut, for example, requires reimbursement for hair transplants, hearing aids, and in vitro fertilization.
The Senate bill would require coverage for prescription drugs, mental-health benefits, and substance-abuse services. It also requires policies to insure "children" until the age of 26. That's just the starting list. The bills would allow the Department of Health and Human Services to add to the list of required benefits, based on recommendations from a committee of experts. Americans, therefore, wouldn't even know what's in their plans and what they're required to pay for, directly or indirectly, until after the bills become law.
2. Freedom to be rewarded for healthy living, or pay your real costs
As with the previous example, the Obama plan enshrines into federal law one of the worst features of state legislation: community rating. Eleven states, ranging from New York to Oregon, have some form of community rating. In its purest form, community rating requires that all patients pay the same rates for their level of coverage regardless of their age or medical condition.
Americans with pre-existing conditions need subsidies under any plan, but community rating is a dubious way to bring fairness to health care. The reason is twofold: First, it forces young people, who typically have lower incomes than older workers, to pay far more than their actual cost, and gives older workers, who can afford to pay more, a big discount. The state laws gouging the young are a major reason so many of them have joined the ranks of uninsured.
Under the Senate plan, insurers would be barred from charging any more than twice as much for one patient vs. any other patient with the same coverage. So if a 20-year-old who costs just $800 a year to insure is forced to pay $2,500, a 62-year-old who costs $7,500 would pay no more than $5,000.
Second, the bills would ban insurers from charging differing premiums based on the health of their customers. Again, that's understandable for folks with diabetes or cancer. But the bills would bar rewarding people who pursue a healthy lifestyle of exercise or a cholesterol-conscious diet. That's hardly a formula for lower costs. It's as if car insurers had to charge the same rates to safe drivers as to chronic speeders with a history of accidents.
3. Freedom to choose high-deductible coverage
The bills threaten to eliminate the one part of the market truly driven by consumers spending their own money. That's what makes a market, and health care needs more of it, not less.
Hundreds of companies now offer Health Savings Accounts to about 5 million employees. Those workers deposit tax-free money in the accounts and get a matching contribution from their employer. They can use the funds to buy a high-deductible plan -- say for major medical costs over $12,000. Preventive care is reimbursed, but patients pay all other routine doctor visits and tests with their own money from the HSA account. As a result, HSA users are far more cost-conscious than customers who are reimbursed for the majority of their care.
The bills seriously endanger the trend toward consumer-driven care in general. By requiring minimum packages, they would prevent patients from choosing stripped-down plans that cover only major medical expenses. "The government could set extremely low deductibles that would eliminate HSAs," says John Goodman of the National Center for Policy Analysis, a free-market research group. "And they could do it after the bills are passed."
4. Freedom to keep your existing plan
This is the freedom that the President keeps emphasizing. Yet the bills appear to say otherwise. It's worth diving into the weeds -- the territory where most pundits and politicians don't seem to have ventured.
The legislation divides the insured into two main groups, and those two groups are treated differently with respect to their current plans. The first are employees covered by the Employee Retirement Security Act of 1974. ERISA regulates companies that are self-insured, meaning they pay claims out of their cash flow, and don't have real insurance. Those are the GEs (GE, Fortune 500) and Time Warners (TWX, Fortune 500) and most other big companies.
The House bill states that employees covered by ERISA plans are "grandfathered." Under ERISA, the plans can do pretty much what they want -- they're exempt from standard packages and community rating and can reward employees for healthy lifestyles even in restrictive states.
But read on.
The bill gives ERISA employers a five-year grace period when they can keep offering plans free from the restrictions of the "qualified" policies offered on the exchanges. But after five years, they would have to offer only approved plans, with the myriad rules we've already discussed. So for Americans in large corporations, "keeping your own plan" has a strict deadline. In five years, like it or not, you'll get dumped into the exchange. As we'll see, it could happen a lot earlier.
The outlook is worse for the second group. It encompasses employees who aren't under ERISA but get actual insurance either on their own or through small businesses. After the legislation passes, all insurers that offer a wide range of plans to these employees will be forced to offer only "qualified" plans to new customers, via the exchanges.
The employees who got their coverage before the law goes into effect can keep their plans, but once again, there's a catch. If the plan changes in any way -- by altering co-pays, deductibles, or even switching coverage for this or that drug -- the employee must drop out and shop through the exchange. Since these plans generally change their policies every year, it's likely that millions of employees will lose their plans in 12 months.
5. Freedom to choose your doctors
The Senate bill requires that Americans buying through the exchanges -- and as we've seen, that will soon be most Americans -- must get their care through something called "medical home." Medical home is similar to an HMO. You're assigned a primary care doctor, and the doctor controls your access to specialists. The primary care physicians will decide which services, like MRIs and other diagnostic scans, are best for you, and will decide when you really need to see a cardiologists or orthopedists.
Under the proposals, the gatekeepers would theoretically guide patients to tests and treatments that have proved most cost-effective. The danger is that doctors will be financially rewarded for denying care, as were HMO physicians more than a decade ago. It was consumer outrage over despotic gatekeepers that made the HMOs so unpopular, and killed what was billed as the solution to America's health-care cost explosion.
The bills do not specifically rule out fee-for-service plans as options to be offered through the exchanges. But remember, those plans -- if they exist -- would be barred from charging sick or elderly patients more than young and healthy ones. So patients would be inclined to game the system, staying in the HMO while they're healthy and switching to fee-for-service when they become seriously ill. "That would kill fee-for-service in a hurry," says Goodman.
In reality, the flexible, employer-based plans that now dominate the landscape, and that Americans so cherish, could disappear far faster than the 5 year "grace period" that's barely being discussed.
Companies would have the option of paying an 8% payroll tax into a fund that pays for coverage for Americans who aren't covered by their employers. It won't happen right away -- large companies must wait a couple of years before they opt out. But it will happen, since it's likely that the tax will rise a lot more slowly than corporate health-care costs, especially since they'll be lobbying Washington to keep the tax under control in the righteous name of job creation.
The best solution is to move to a let-freedom-ring regime of high deductibles, no community rating, no standard benefits, and cross-state shopping for bargains (another market-based reform that's strictly taboo in the bills). I'll propose my own solution in another piece soon on Fortune.com. For now, we suffer with a flawed health-care system, but we still have our Five Freedoms. Call them the Five Endangered Freedoms.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/07/24/news/economy/health_care_reform_obama.fortune/
 
jeffchr

jeffchr

Well-Known Member
Higher Education said:
Haha, you're silly.


Progressive Reform is a more friendly word for Socialized Medicine.
Click to expand...
First off, Shawn Tully is the Editor at Large at Fortune, so it's not like you supplied any additonal support for the biased artile you featured in your post.

1. If minimum standards are passed for insurance, it can only make your insurance better from a coverage stand point. The cost of insurance is a different issue entirely, but by design the new policies are intended to reduce overall costs.

2. The community rating idea does tend to purify the plans into actual insurance as opposed to the plans currently skewed toward the young and healthy.

3. "The bills seriously endanger the trend toward consumer-driven care in general." This is total nonsense. The trend is not toward consumer-driven health care. The trend is toward providor driven health care. The bill seriously drives the trend toward consumer driven health care. This is so typical of the insurance industry's propaganda campaign. They just shout lies.

4. "Since these plans generally change their policies every year, it's likely that millions of employees will lose their plans in 12 months." More lousy lies. What? Do you really believe these plans won't be replaced? "the employee must drop out and shop through the exchange." Get real. The employers will maintain the health care for their employees. Wake up!

5. The Medical Home issue is terribly skewed in your article. It's origins have nothing at all to do with politics or the economy. The Medical Home concepts was developed by the American Association of Pediatrics and supported by the AMA, the American Academy of Physicians, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Family of Pediatrics and the list goes on. I have listed only of few. It is an approach to providing comprehensive preventative medical care, designed by medical care providors. there are important distinctions between care coordination in the medical home and the “gatekeeper” model as the article implies. In the medical home, the patient has open access to see whatever physician they choose. No referral or permission is required. The personal physician of choice, who has comprehensive knowledge of the patient’s medical conditions, facilitates and provides information to subspecialists involved in the care of the patient. The medical home puts emphasis on medical management rewarding quality patient-centered care. That fortune article is a blatant lie and you are a tool
 
jeffchr

jeffchr

Well-Known Member
kappainf said:
Why do people think that the government should have more power and spend more money? This is the same government that will put your ass in jail for smoking pot. Even messiah Obama laughs at the notion of legalization.
Click to expand...
now that argument has some merit in my opinion. :peace:
 
doobnVA

doobnVA

Well-Known Member
:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:{Personally, I'm over the controversy liberals/ conservative, democrats and republicans, Bush or Obama. People, wake up! don't you realise it's all the same? Yes, illegals and lazy "MF" will beneficiate from our contribution but I guess you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs. On a human standing point, I think that a medical carreer is a vocation to bring health to the People and should be not used with the purpose of accumulating unlimited wealth. So just to fuck with the actual HMO and the private health industry, I would say YES. Unfortunately, I can't vote!}

Great post, kanabis! Thanks for giving us some real perspective on our health care (scam) system from an objective point of view!
 
kanabis

kanabis

Well-Known Member
Glad to see some people think alike! The point is where ever you look into our "worldwide" society model, it is a big smoke and mirror. I'm maybe pushing and being parano. I was reading about the actual problem in order to obtain organic seeds (fruit, veggies, etc ...). Did you know that 80% of the produce we eat has been manipulated genetically to fulfil a hidden agenda. For example, I call hidden agenda the fact that manipulated corn could have a negative impact on human fertility, is this something like they did not expect or it is something they are looking for? Unfortunately, the consequences on human health of these magic tricks are still unknown in most case. There are some laboratory experiments that show serious harmful secondary effects on rats such as cancer, leukaemia, neurologic disorders, etc ... Seedless produce is a commercial trend and the result of genetic manipulation that could be related with the abnormal disappearance of the bee population and other diseases. This is scary shit! I'm amazed most consumers fall for it. Assuming the health care industry is big business, common sense dictate that no matter what, they need customers to maintain their investors happy. So, by definition my friends, the more sick people, the more these investors will invest. Hopefully a reform in the health care system will slow down things a little bit.
 
ViRedd

ViRedd

New Member
kanabis said:
As an employer and specially a small business owner, it can affect you already fucked up finances, so watch out!
Click to expand...
And, in the U.S. small business accounts for approximately 50% of the job creation. Increase the cost of doing business and jobs will be either cut or not created.

Our health care truly needs to be improved, but a free market solution would be much more preferable than turning over our entire health care system to government to run.
 
doobnVA

doobnVA

Well-Known Member
ViRedd said:
And, in the U.S. small business accounts for approximately 50% of the job creation. Increase the cost of doing business and jobs will be either cut or not created.

Our health care truly needs to be improved, but a free market solution would be much more preferable than turning over our entire health care system to government to run.
Click to expand...

As far as I understand, noone is proposing turning the "entire health care system" over to the government to run.

The ultimate goal of reforming our health system is to STOP the insurance companies from jacking up prices and dropping sick people who really need care. They aren't going to do this on their own (or else they already would have), so if it takes the government to step in and regulate them, then that's what they'll have to do.
 
Green Cross

Green Cross

Well-Known Member
Wow it's amazing that people believe what they hear politicians like obama say.

I was just watching his press conference this morning, and the press just loves to applaud and suck up to their king.

There are plenty of private sector solutions to the health care problems. why not open up competition between states, instead of handing over more authority to big brother?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top