Congress has been considering how best to expand funding and coverage of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), (background here and here), with President Bush, Republican Congressional leaders and the insurance companies now fighting hard to prevent the Democrats from enacting some very good ideas that have broad public support. And except for the Republican leadership, this effort enjoys “bipartisan” support.
But the insurance industry is starting to fight back with misleading ads, and PBS’ NewsHour, which had earlier done better reporting using their health expert on this topic, dropped the ball Monday night, falsely framing the debate as between two Republican factions, while failing to explain either what the fight is about or allow any of the real Democratic sponsors to explain it.
Recall that the Senate Democrats, with some support from Republicans (e.g., Hatch, Grassley, Snowe, Domenici) are proposing to expand coverage to more children (set a higher income level of eligibility) and provide an additional $35 billion in funding over several years. That would be financed by higher taxes on cigarettes. The House Democrats are pushing for an even higher eligibility level and $50 billion more in funding. So we’re talking about expanding a highly successful program to anywhere from 3 to 5 million more of the estimated 9 million uninsured children. However, the House proposal would also reduce current subsidies for private health insurance, and that has sent Bush, the Republican leaders and the insurance company into full demogoguery about government takeover of health care, and misleading ads about taking away health coverage.
The ad I saw on CNN shows several people, mostly senior, complaining that Congress is proposing to take away their health coverage. Sounds awful, right? You’d think the Republicans were after Social Security again. But this ad, sponsored by “America’s Health Insurance Companies,” doesn’t explain that there are folks who are eligible for subsidized private health insurance, and this private insurance system competes with government sponsored pooling efforts like Medicare. Without the subsidies, the private insurance plans, which are more costly, would have to lower costs to compete against the pool-based government plans, and people would simply stay with or return to the government program. Without the subsidies, people would still be covered, but the overall cost would be less. So what’s really at stake for Republicans is whether the insurance companies get a guaranteed slice of the action, subsidized by taxes, or have to compete on a level playing field.
House Democrats are proposing to reduce the subsidy to level the playing field, and then use the money the government saves to fund millions more children under SCHIP for less cost. Sounds like a good trade, and Paul Krugman had an excellent op ed “An Immoral Philosophy” (Times Select) on the policy debate and what it says about the motives and priorities of the Republican leadership. And check out Bob Geiger, who has a fine post and video of Senator Kennedy helping Trent Lott understand the moral issues.
Now enter PBS’ NewsHour and the segment in which Gwen Ifill pretended to interview each side — but didn’t. She first interviewed Health and Human Affairs Secretary Michael Leavitt, who predictably gave us the Bush propaganda point of view about how this would force people into government health care [no it gives them a fair choice without subsidizing more costly private insurance schemes], cost too much [no, it lowers overall costs for any given level of coverage], and provide “welfare” or “public assistance” to middle-class people who don’t need it [no, it shifts health care and its funding from subsidized private insurance to pool-based systems paid for by taxes]. So who did Gwen choose to respond to Secretary Leavitt? Minnesota Republican Governor Tim Pawlenty.
I admit it’s noteworthy that governors or both parties support expanding SCHIP, but a Republican governor is not going to say that the White House philosophy is wrong, that its position is false and misleading and that Leavitt unfairly smeared people with the “welfare” comment. And he’s not going to correct any of the misconceptions or concerns from Secretary Leavitt about covering too many people or costing too much. Instead, the Republican Governor said he shared those concerns and maybe we should work with the White House to address them. And Ifill did nothing to fix the imbalance her/PBS’ choice of guests created.
Dear PBS: health care is extremely important to Americans, and the SCHIP debate is important both in its own right and because it is the leading edge in the debate over where the health care reforms are headed. The key question is how you finish this sentence: “Every American needs access to _______.” The Democrats think the missing words are “universal health care.” Bush, Leavitt, and Mitch McConnell think the missing words are “private insurance policies.” That’s a huge difference Gwen, and you missed it. And having two Republicans debate insurance coverage, when the major health care reforms are all coming from Democrats, just doesn’t get it. Sloppy work, PBS; it’s time to step up your game.
Photo: Health and Human Resources Secretary Michael Leavitt, on PBS’ NewsHour.
Related posts:
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search
morning all
zed????
Darn. I thought my first comment might be, just possibly…
ps Pawlenty is a tool
Has Bush lost his political mind? There was never any humanity there to lose, so I don’t even wonder about that. But how in the world does Rove/Bush think this is going to play well – to anybody?
Veto for children’s health care? Jaybus.
“Compassionate Conservatism”= private insurance companies
Real Compassion = Universal Health Care
Micheal Moore has encouraged all of us to call a Universal Health care program “Chritianized” Health care instead of “socialized” Health Care to shut down those who will continually refer to such a fair and compassionate system as “socialism”
Scarecrow, When I saw this segment I showed great restraint by not smashing in my TV. Actually that’s not true, I’m just a lousy shot. Newshour more frequently than not spins the administrations lies and their average viewer knows it. Their audience is not the same makeup as the FOX audience and Newshour might find their ratings slipping because of this..
The MSM is bought an paid for, and not for the public good despite those lofty tear jerking adds PBS likes to run between corporate sponsor ads. Just shut them off, give them no credibility.
How is private health insurance subsidized? Yes, we don’t pay Federal Income tax on it (although the employer indirectly does) (an outgrowth of World War II employment policy). But NOT paying taxes on something does NOT constitute a subsidy. Before reducing the value (i.e., Dollars out of MY pocket) of MY health insurance, someone had better explain how the Government will do it better. Almost universally, it does it worse.
And what is *Hatch* doing on the side of the angels on this one? There must be something in it for him somehow.
End corporate welfare!!!!!!!!!!!
JPL @ 6
That’s what shotguns are for. . . the TV not the people mentioned of course.
Thank you for calling PBS out on it.
At the risk of being cynical, it is frustrating to know that David Brooks can be wrong, offtarget and obnoxious time after time, yet he is still offered a paying gig so as to offer “perspective”.
So, I was not surprised to read your critique.
That said, thank you for calling PBS, as it is much better to light candles than merely curse the darkness. Nicely done.
Good morning, all. Michael Leavitt constantly flies under the radar – of the progressives, too. He is a water carrier for Bush, and he is the chief “steward” of the Surgeon General, the CDC, FDA, Medicare, SCHIP, Public Health Service. Now do you see why all of this is in such a mess? He has systematically replaced qualified professionals and scientists with party hacks, and he has undermined the nation’s public health and individual health.
Excellent post, Scarecrow. I no longer watch teevee and so hadn’t caught this end run.
This incident shows AGAIN why it’s so serious that the Republicans have taken over the airwaves [as well as everything else]. Most Americans still think they can rely on PBS to give them an “honest report” on various issues. This type of “reporting” creeps further towards totalitarianism each day. And it’s damn hard to reverse!!
I work in a medical office & it is very sad to see the amount of working parents (including one of our staff) who cannot afford to insure their kids. I recently had to d/c coverage on an employee’s kids b/c she could not longer afford the policy. So both working parents are insured by their employer, but the kids are shit out of luck. And because both parents make above the eligibility limit, the kids are not eligible for SCHIP. It is a choice of being able to make the monthly house payment & health insurance for their kids. What a country!
Morning, all —
For those without Times Select access, Truthout has Krugman’s “An Immoral Philosophy.”
Thanks, Scarecrow, as always (and belated happy re-stuffing day!)
Oh,Oh, CNN reads Donita. They are showing the prison inmates youtube.
DocRoss @ 3
Amen.
Just to illustrate the extreme tool-ness of my dear guv (snort). He, the R wunderkind, alleged VP-to-be, has steadfastly stuck to the no-new-taxes shtick. BUT, when faced with a big budget shortfall, enacted lots of “fees,” including a massive cigarette “fee”.
I’m thinkin’ that didn’t come up on NewsHour?
The blatant hypocrisy has been laughable, and, but for a late Dem gaffe and a reasonably strong Ind. candidate, Puh-lenty would’ve been swept out of statewide office, along with the rest of his R colleagues. (And most of the state house. Heh.)
We don’t need insurance… we need health care.
Diana DeGette up on CSPAN on this right now
and Good Morning!
Good morning everyone. These people lied to start a war, outed a secret agent for political purposes, have ravaged the treasury, so vetoing health care for kids is really no surprise.
It’s just a shame for the kids.
Leavitt up on cspan now.
pro choice lib @ 7
Sad, but true. Bill Moyer’s, however, is still, and will always be, the exception.
Sorry, Leavitt clip on cspan.
The insurance companies pounded Hillary Clinton’s plan in the early 90’s. I will never forget when she shared the findings of her research, and the plan that she had come up with congress. She received a standing ovation that went on for quite some time.
I immediately thought she is going to have her assed kicked by insurance companies, and other special interest, and she did.
One of the things I know about Senator Clinton is that we will get a National Health care plan if she becomes President.
Hi, is there anyway I can email a moderator?
[Mod Note; Email addresses can be found at the “About/Contact us” link at the top of the page.]
Excellent, Scarecrow.
Liberty Lee @13
Private insurance cannot compete with Medicare because its costs are too high and because it has to produce large and increasing profits each year for its shareholders. Medicare is reasonably cost effective because it covers practically all of the elderly, including the fairly healthy and the sickly. This is the way insurance is supposed to work. Take homeowner’s fire coverage. We all pay. I don’t need it because my house never burns down. You do because your house does burn down. I don’t think that is unfair because if I had needed it, I would have had it. Medicare and health insurance work the same way. We are all healthy today, but tomorrow we may be sick and need it. I don’t complain if I don’t get sick and need it, because it was there if I did.
Medicare is partially funded by the elderly and largely by taxes, the medicare tax you see on your paystub.
The private insurers offered to take on some of the elderly. They said this would provide competition to Medicare and make it sharper. But they could not do it for the same price because their costs were higher and they had to make a profit. So as a condition to doing this, they wanted a subsidy from the US Government, paid from taxes. And Congress agreed. It still wasn’t enough, so they started cherry picking insureds, taking only the relatively healthy people and letting Medicare take care of the rest. This hurts Medicare, because it loses the premiums paid by the reasonably healthy. So, we had to increase the tax money going to Medicare. We lost two times, paying extra to Medicare and extra to the insurance companies. And we got nothing for it.
As you can see this makes no economic sense at all. So, the Democrats and reasonable republicans wanted to cut the subsidy and use the new money to take care of kids. Pretty sensible, isn’t it?
DocRoss @ 3
Yeah, but doggone it, he’s OUR tool (as in McCain’s anointed one in MN). Having had that bridge blow, our Pawlenty now must be showcased other ways to elevate him to nationalnesshood. He’s slithery in the fashion of most (all?) Bush Republicans. He looks and sounds reasonable, if you don’t pay attention to content and aftermath.
The Republicans dominate and THEN accuse the msm of being left-wing! It drives me crazy when a supposedly left-wing program, like All Things Considered, presents some program that could have been written by Karl Rove. I hate it when the WSJ does it, but when NPR does it, it’s just crap. And listen the NPR when they go begging for money twice a year about how they are so trusted.
How about how the Repugs criticized the Dems about lobby reform saying that their bill didn’t go far enough! They are the reason this stupid bill had to be passed at all! It’s such crap!
Single payer and public financing of elections.
Now that would be good government.
{{N=1}} You okay?
Pawlenty is a pox on Minnesota.
masaccio @ 29. Thanks for the clearest description I’ve seen of the whole mess. Mind if I borrow from it to talk to some brothers-in-law?
I used to do commentaries on Minnesota Public Radio (MPR). But over time, there was less and less I could say that was deemed partisan. For public broadcasting, there’s a terrible dynamic of having big donors (individual and corporate) hooked/lined/sinkered to the right. Can’t afford to bite the hand . . . seems to be the rationale. And so it has come to pass that the right owns “public” broadcasting as well as the MSM. Moyers excepted. And I really do wonder how long MSNBC will let KO keep on keeping on. Good ratings. Pissing off corporate sponsors. Blah, blah, blah.
Universal health care=good
Universal health care, with single payer=best.
The buzz is not about the veto of the childrens health care the buzz is misdirection about Iraq asnd the DOJ investigations. Remember this is accountability and the Gutless wonders are not nor do they want accountability, so lets give one or the other talk about the bush CRIME FAMILY or child Health care, (the robots in the media will take the route of least resistance Child health care).
No one seems to get it this guy will shoot himself in the foot rather then be looked squarely in the eye, the same goes for the rest of the gutless, spineless, cowards in the repukulan party.
As far as lightening up I do not think so these are very EVIL and VICIOUS people who have only there own self interest in line notice how they are quitely disassembling the Electorial vote in different states, with these scum and trash it is all about power and maoney. Their is NO loyalty to COUNTRY only to SELF interest and Corporations.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 32
I could not agree more! However, during the years of my journey around the Sun {1947 vintage), whenever our nation arrived at a moral crossroad, the wrong path was almost always chosen.
I still hope that will change. But that will happen ONLY when the people INSIST upon it.
masaccio @ 29
Are you saying there is tax money going to the Medicare insurers? I have not heard of such an appropriation. I know that insurers get tax benefits if they insure classes of people but I’ve never heard they get tax dollars to do that other than the tax dollars we all pay. I have personal experience with Medicare with my late mother: it doesn’t work. She lived in a fairly remote area of Oregon where the choices of doctors that would accept Medicare were so limited that the care was extremely spotty. She was a Democrat but she did like the President’s prescription drug benefit because it actually cut her costs of medicines. But as a general matter, Medicare was as bad as the DMV as far as the paperwork and ability to get information about the status of payments. Whereas I, as an employee of a medium sized corporation can log onto my company’s insurer’s website and order prescrptions and deal with paper all on online. No comparision. So , no, I’m not convinced. I’m not convinced that we take tax dollars from productive people and just hand them over to unproductive people. It doesn’t make economic or medical sense.
We were fortunate in Canada that we went to medicare before the rise of the health insurance industry – though there was resistance from doctors at the time. We do hear conservative politicians telling us that a more privatized system would be miraculously be more efficient – but it would be a political disaster to jeopardize medicare – Canadians are passionately attached to their health system.
I’d have to say to people like Liberty Lee – just talk to people who live under a single-payer health system – it’s not perfect, but it sure beats the alternatives.
Common Dreams has the full article up and out of the firewall.
Rudy Giuliani, as we know, said yesterday that full health care coverage of all Americans would be “social*stic”, and “European”. Only ‘frredom fries’ type of medical care will be allowed in this nation. So Rudy the G. says that single payer, or whatever, won’t be permitted in his regime. And that takes care of that. Is Rudy a Compassionate Con, or what? GOP. Greedy Old Party.
Raw Story reports Rumsfeld will testify
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/….._0731.html
Common Dreams has the full article up and out of the firewall
Liberty Lee @ 13
The deduction your employer gets for paying for part or all of your health insurance isn’t a subsidy to the insurance companies. It is harder to see what it actually does. Suppose your employer didn’t pay for insurance. Then presumably he would pay you as additional income the amount he currently pays for your insurance. Because many employers have large groups of employees of different ages and healthiness, they pay average costs for everybody. So every employee’s pay would go up the same amount. You would then have to go buy insurance yourself.
That won’t be a problem if you are young and healthy, because the extra money in your paycheck is more than enough to cover your insurance. But if you are old or sickly, then it will not be enough, and you will have a large extra expense. So, by encouraging employers to buy the insurance, at least theoretically it should work like insurance does and spread the risk over large groups of insureds, with everyone paying about the same. As I pointed out above, that is how insurance should work.
Insurance companies should take risk into account in some cases. But if they do it in health insurance, they simply won’t insure people who are old or sickly at reasonable prices. Then we lose the benefit of spreading the costs.
If we think of health care like diamonds, then we would not care if some have it and some don’t. But people without health care suffer unnecessarily. It is something we all need, and we don’t know when we will need it. It seems to me that we are best off if we treat it like education, something that is there for everyone, regardless of income. There is no reason insurance companies should be able to make a profit off of insurance. We all have to pay those profits, and they do not provide any efficiency. That is the reason I like single-payer insurance. It is cheaper and more efficient.
Rich people who think they are entitled to more than the rest of us can always buy it. But no one should have to file bankruptcy, or not be able to afford prescriptions, or have to keep a job they hate because they desperately need the private insurance.
The one thing I don’t want is a coverage system that works like the car insurance industry. Which is what big business is proposing. What that does when you require that everyone have health care insurance is that it gives a monopoly to the insurance industry. Look at what has happened to the car insurance since they made it mandatory.
Bottom line, poor folks can’t afford it. We still pay for the accidents on our insurance AND we put people in jail for driving without it. I have had to make the choice before in my own life as to whether or not to insure my car or go to work without it. In my city we don’t have good bus systems and their is no subway.
I have heard some dems support such plans but they will only hurt the working poor. Now car insurance has sky rocketed. And insurance companies put you into high risk categories where you pay huge premiums just for having a lapse in your insurance.
I got a ride with a co worker for about a year. I cancelled my car insurance because I wasn’t driving. They charged me double my normal premiums, same as if I were high risk, because their had been a lapse in my insurance for a year. I had never had a ticket or accident in my life!!!!!
Just to make sure folks are aware that these ideas will only help the insurance companies and hurt the working poor.
We have known for sometime that they’re going to pull out all stops to steal the next election. To me, insuring we win the next election is paramount. They are ruthless criminals and all their energy (from day one) has gone to creating the magical ‘permanent repub majority’.
masaccio @ 44
Plus the cost of employer-paid health insurance increases the costs and decreases the international competitiveness of employers.
Nola Sue, you are welcome to use it and I hope you will. You might also take a look at my 44, where I try to answer the other point Liberty Lee made.
carolyn urban @ 33
Thanks for asking – Uh huh, although kind of in shell shock *g*. Thanks to everyone! Will be going into NY tomorrow for yet more rounds of the hiring game.
masaccio @ 44
This is a “gem” of a response! By any chance would you allow it to be cross posted on my blog? (And if you’re up for the rabid right, there are many physicians’ blogs where you could leave this in response to their rantings about healthcare as a privilege and not a right – compassion, my Aunt Fanny!
For people with insurance in this country they will never be for universal healthcare coverage or SCHIP until someone they know doesn’t have coverage. I had COBRA through my ex-husband, after it ended I could not get insurance. The people around me have been SHOCKED, SHOCKED what do you mean you can’t get coverage. It is as if the debate about coverage has not even been going on.
Watched Bernie Sanders speak on this issue yesterday as well; like Kennedy, he framed it forcefully and eloquently, and of course he argued passionately for going much further – for universal coverage. Here’s the audio clip. At about 7 and a half minutes in he eviscerates the President by comparing the proposed tax-breaks from the estate-tax repeal ($1 trillion over 20 years benefiting top .3 percent) to the costs of expanding SCHIP. And he ends with:
Kinda echoes your line:
Think the CPB will let Lehrer and Ifill invite Bernie Sanders and Ted Kennedy to debate the issue next time?
Jeanne @ 51
Respectfully disagree. I have ins through employer but am wholeheartedly for UHC.
Does anyone know the e-mail addresses/phone numbers of the NewsHour producers? They pull this crap ALL the time, and I’m sick of it. Either the NewsHour’s production staff is full of winger sycophants, or they’re “servicing” their corporate masters a little too vigorously, but it’s time this stuff gets a pushback from viewers.
I’ve searched websites looking for e-mail addresses and/or corporate listings of the producers, and PBS makes it VERY difficult to find out who’s accountable for stuff like this.
Hm–wait, didn’t PBS just hire an ombuds-person? Michael Getler or Byron Calame? (Did i dream that?)
anyway, let me know if anyone has the details on the NewsHour producers please!!
Solai @ 53
And, let me add that my net income will drop approx $2500/yr soon because employer needs to pass on more of the cost for insurance to employee. And, my net income will probably drop every year after that as insurance companies continue to gouge us.
Bernie Sanders is a firecracker. Health Care has been one of his big issues. He was a self described Social*st when he was mayor of Burlington, and he is passionately opposed to an economy rigged to make the rich richer.
Edit and released by Mods
masaccio @ 46
From an emotional perspective, I agree with you. Except I HAVE stayed in jobs I hate precisely because they had the medical coverage I couldn’t afford otherwise. The philosophical problem I have is that that no system that doesn’t give CHOICE can truly be called “free”. Health care has NEVER been a “right”, at least not in the sense the Founders understood rights. You can say the right to life implies the right to “eat” but nowhere is there a Constitutional obligation to provide food. Now, since FDR, there has been a set of “safety nets”, some of which have worked, others of which have been utter disasters (e.g., welfare). Health care in this country is one of those illogical things like the Common Law that has sort of grown out of custom that you just can’t tear up without goring someone’s ox. The solution I can see is some sort of Health Savings account which would be tax free. You choose to participate. If you don’t, you get NO care other than for emergencies. And you have to transition to it. Since, as you point out, you have the higher risk elderly population that has never provided this for themselves, you have to provide something equivalent to what they have until the demographics change and everyone has made their own choices. But anything that doesn’t involve choice is coercive and therefore, by definition, totalitarian. Canada and most of Europe is this way. Surprisingly, Chile and some South American countries have done a choice type process and they work wherever tried.
Folks: One of the underlying issues dealing with SCIP and Universal Healthcare is the fact that employers more and more use “contingent Labor”(that incluedes temps, self employed, etc.)The most recent figures from teh Labor Department estimate that 12% of teh entire labor force is contingent, with 2.5 million of those being actual agency temps. The issue that most temps are now basically “perma-temp” (that is, they will never get on the payroll and there is no legislation at the federal level to make employers put temps on payrolls or let them go after a certain amount of time). I have worked as an agency temp since 1994. I have never heard of a temp agency that provides health insurance for its temps; so of course family health insurance is totally out of the matter. Temps also, while many times doing the same jobs as their permanent coworkers, make a lower pay rate. See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..ge=printer
For anyone who recalls the Microsoft permatemp class action suit; nothing has changed. Sen. Kennedy tried to get attention for this issue by forwarding legislation to make employers either turn temps into payrolled employees or let them go within 6 months. Unfortunately, this was submitted the day that the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke loose and it never got enough traction to go anywhere. Another detail of note: at the World Trade Center on 9/11, there were hundreds of temps working in that building, but because the employers in WTC did not have them on their payroll rosters, their families did not know what had happened to them for days because of the lack of communication with the agencies.
The growth of the use of temp workers has exascerbated the entire healthcare/insurance issue. Only universal healthcare will help us.
Fund SCHIP with $35 billion over several years exclusively by raising ciggie taxes? So how are the other 80% of americans (the non-smokers) gonna chip in? Couldn’t we just, oh i don’t know, cut some illegal war funding, repeal some taxcuts to the rich or overcharge supporters of this illegitimate regime? At least the demonized smokers are doing their part; -don’t quit now folks! The kids are dependin’ on ya!
N=1 @ 50
Thanks, you are welcome to cross-post it. As to visiting right wing blogs, I really ought to do more of it, but it is harder than I like to admit. Where might I go?
Toby Wollin @ 58
Additionally, more employers have the Temp Agency Representatives Offices located on site in the HR Department. They no longer make any bones about it. I worked at a facility (Matsushita Avionics-now Panasonic In Flight Entertainment Systems in Woodenville, WA) where everybody but management was a temp.
You mean somebody still watches the Snoozhour?
One would think that everyone wants more bang for their buck but when it comes to single payer health care coverage, Medicare, Medicaid & Social Security there is that group that sees these words & immediately sees “welfare” & “socialsim”. One can show them all the concrete facts & numbers that clearly demonstrate these imperfect programs are more cost effective than privatization. Even if these programs were nearly perfect the cons would still want to shut them down. The cons are not interested in building on these programs to make them even more cost effective & reduce the financial burden on our local hospitals, etc. As my dad-in-law in his late 80’s says, they just want to throw the baby out with the bath water.
Many very decent republican friends & relatives have a beet-red faced anger toward recipients of government backed programs. I asked one relative who was ranting about people on welfare & I asked him which takes more out of our backpockets, our “dead-beat” neighbors or corporate welfare. I think there is a fear & loathing in those are adamantly against most or all of these programs. I can see the disgust & hatred in their faces when these subjects come up. Why the extreme reaction? I would love to see some analysts or psychologists weigh in on this. I think this mind set is a hugh hurdle to common sense policy making & I want to understand it better. Are they deep down so afraid they themselves could end up in dire straits, they turn that fear onto others who are?
Liberty Lee @57
You write
You had to stay in a job you hate to stay alive. It sounds to me like the exact opposite of freedom. You had no choice but to stay in a job you hate. That would not happen in my system.
It seems to me that freedom of job is a lot more important that the freedom you fear you would lose in my system.
Perhaps you meant you would lose your freedom to choose a doctor. Single payer insurance is like Medicare, you get to pick your doctor, but the system pays the doctor.
I never agreed with people who think picking a doctor is a big deal anyway. It makes a difference for some of us, who have doctors in the family and can get a real recommendation, but most of us pick for entirely wrong reasons. I know some real horror stories about “society doctors”, let me tell you.
N=1 have you found a place for your dog? Where near NY are you?
Have soken with several young Doctors.
They worry a single-payer system would not compensate them adequately, given that they have education-debt approaching $3000,000.00.
A genuine success in transforming medical care might consider the possibility of paying for such education. Nurses must be included as well. We are talking about a FUNDAMENTAL investment in our collective future. By the way, I tell the young physicians to watch
Sicko and then speak with me again.
As to genuine electoral reform;
we already know what is necessary, we just have to INSIST. They (yep, them) won’t be happy but the people must ignore the lamentations of the self-serving.
masaccio @ 44
This is a “gem” of a response! By any chance would you allow it to be cross posted on my blog? (And if you’re up for the rabid right, there are many physicians’ blogs where you could leave this in response to their rantings about healthcare as a privilege and not a right – compassion, my Aunt Fanny!masaccio @ 62
Kevin, M.D. is the core of the right wing medical blogs. He culls blog and news posts and is forever posting about why universal healthcare will fail. His second biggest concern is physician income and earnings protections. He’s a free market baby except when the free market hits him in the pocketbook. Why he’s even licensed to practice is beyond me.
Here’s HoJoe’s response. I am getting rather sick of his equivocal– or should be read as equivocal– responses. Quite ill, really:
Pade @ 67
Thanks for asking – a friend of one of the movers is borading both of them (two – a collie and a little spaniel -both are 13) until Saturday. Then – I don’t know – still looking. I’m currently in Boston hoping to relocate to NYC because jobs are more likely there.
The reason so many people hate those who receive any form of assistance, is that it looks too much like their own future. Or it reminds them of desperate times in their own past. Some of the vitrol is inspired by hate
radio, can you imagine?
Why do conservatives have this idea that no one has a “right” to just basic things,like food,clothing,shelter,healthcare and an education? Because it’s not written down by the Founders? Shouldn’t that really be a no brainer? Wouldn’t we be MUCH farther along as a nation if all that stuff was treated like it WAS in fact a right for everyone to have those things? If basic needs are met,people can move onward to much greater things.
I’ve been poor,homeless and uninsured. When you have to spend all your time just scraping by to get food or a place to live,how the hell can you possibly do anything else? And please no talk of bootstraps,what if you have no boots,bootstraps or a place to find either of those things?
I beleive in fiscal responsibility,which is not the same as being stingy and mean about that. If this country can go into debt to the tune of a trillion damned dollars for a war,there is NO REASON on earth for a soul to be hungry,homeless,uneducated or without healthcare.
angryoldbroad: Amen.
Whoops should be three hundred thousand in educational debt @ 66
angryoldbroad @ 71
You go girl!
Scarecrow — Thanks for the post… I have been thinking about the lack of progressive representation on NPR (I don’t watch much TV, but PBS would also be appropriate here). And last night a commenter over at TNH mentioned that there was a seminar at YKos for potential pundits to practice answering questions.
Would you please pass along a request that at the end of YKos this year, someone put together a list of people willing to serve as progressive pundits and publish that list on various blogs? I would love to then start a letter writing campaign to NPR and PBS asking them to truly balance their discussions by expanding their list of pundits.
Gotta, scoot for now, but wanted add this to discussion as it is apropos to your post — thanks!
I’ll turn off the lights and meet you all upstairs.
jeffnar @ 61
I don’t agree with penalizing smokers. Coming from New England, which has a rich history of this, I can’t stand “sin taxes” or anything that reeks of nanny state. It breeds resentment. Philosophically I don’t believe the state has the right to act paternialistically– that is providing care at the expense of liberty. Notice how people also believe that person receiving state assistance should also be penalized as well. I disagree with that. And no, I don’t consider myself libertarian, because I do believe in state assistance (without the infringing on the receivers’ personal liberty.)
ironranger @ 74
Thank You Ironranger. This attitude of the
“values voter”that no one has the right to be fed,FED for heaven’s sake is just wrong on so many levels I can’t begin to unravel it all. What the hell are they so scared of if people actually are eating well and have the basics? Crime would go down,kids would stay in school longer,you’d see a drop in unhappy family units(resulting perhaps in less divorce and maybe even less domestic violence and child abuse or neglect),a rise in education and maybe even a return to a place where this country actually produces more than it consumes. Like local jobs,small businesses,better trained teachers,medical and dental pros,etc,etc.
We’ve done it”their way”,it’s not working. We can multi task too,we could try more than one approach. There’s 300 million of us here in the USA,no one can convince me we can’t solve any problem we put our minds to.
The Blue Cross Blue Shield Association is opposing this bill because they say it “massive funding cuts to Medicare Advantage and an unprecedented level of government overregulation.”
Medicare Advantage does offer a range of supplemental coverage to seniors. What is the progressive response to this valid concern?
anangryoldbroad @ 80
These are people who don’t realize we have a modern version of the feudal system going on. The peasantry get fed and cared for at the discretion of Big Corp, or discarded at will. That is not the trappings of a modern state nor is it humane. It is barbaric. Europe and other countries are starting to make the U.S. look like it is in the dark ages. And as an aside, many well known academics actually grew up poor and went to school on the GI Bill. A modern democratic society will allow people to complete equally, not allow poverty to be an impediment. I realize I sound like I am ideologing. But I am not an idealogue, it just sounds like sound sense to me.
angryoldbroad@80:
Exactly! I think it was Jim Hightower whose dad said, “Everybody does better when everybody does better”. Makes perfectly logical sense to me.
I thought we were the “can do” country too. If we hadn’t gotten stalled in the 70’s (by other’s agendas) on alternate energy solutions, just imagine where we would be today. Same with health care coverage & on & on. I guess when it comes to foolhardy wars the conservatives think we “can do” but not when it comes to health care, energy independence or anything that would uplift this country. Then again, I remember when even republicans thought war profiteering was about as unamerican as it gets!
heh,yep,but times have changed,and today’s conservatives just don’t seem to want to remember that there’s no such thing as a “self
made”person. EVERYONE has had help of some sort to get to the place where they have what they have now. No one exists in a vaccuum where no one has helped them along somehow. That’s a myth that should have been trashed a long time ago.
angryoldbroad:
If you are still around…
I really hate seeing a mean spiritedness in otherwise decent people I know who are “loyal” republicans. I can’t wrap my mind around the disconnect.
Wed 01 Aug 2007
08.35 Culver City, CA
Scarecrow, you are simply far too gentle with PBS and, especially, Ms Ifill. She has established a long, impeccable record as sneeringly disdainful of anything and anyone to the left of, say, Bob Dole, managing at the same time to present a deceptive, cheerful face as… to borrow a phrase… “fair and balanced.”
==Mel Strom
marjo @ 81
Medicare Advantage does offer a range of supplemental coverage to seniors. What is the progressive response to this valid concern?
Although I teach statistics, I firmly believe that you can’t understand things without knowing their histories. The Blues started out their lives as Not-For-Profit medical insurance companies. Today, most of the Blues are privately-held for-profit companies. What they are trying to do here is to head off a threat to a profitable subsidized market they own.
HMOs can be a good options for seniors. My own parents are covered by Medicare/Kaiser. Medicare Part D (the so-called prescription benefit) was not a big deal to them, because they already had coverage. Kaiser simply wrapped Part D into their coverage. My mother-in-law does not have an HMO option, and every year it’s a struggle to figure out what her best choice for Medicare supplemental is.
The bottom-line for us, however, is that the Blues are for-profit companies. Their primary allegiance (indeed, fiduciary responsibility) is to their shareholders, not their policy holders.
The health insurance debate is really misplaced: the debate is health care financing. Our current system is broken, and it needs to be fixed.
How about an analogy: according to Suetonius, the Romans had a water supply problem in the time of Claudius. It was caused in part by a policy that allowed people to establish property rights to leaks in the plumbing system. It was also caused in part by rich people enlarging their intake pipes (illegally). Because the pipes were lead, you didn’t need to be a plumber to enlarge the pipe.
We have allowed private insurers to spring up and establish property rights to leakages in our crazy quilt of a health care finance system. We have allowed other insurers to enlarge their ‘take’ from the health care finance system, although it’s perhaps a bit more difficult than ramming a log through a lead pipe.
We fix the problem the same way Claudius did. Get rid of the waste in the system (patch the leaks), and if we allow private insurers to play we regulate them closely. We don’t allow them to cherry-pick policy holders, and we control their profit levels. That’s analogous to Claudius’ banning lead intake pipes in favor of bronze, which is much less ductile.
Finally, we have to understand that health care is a scarce, desirable good. It’s going to be rationed somehow. Our method of dollar rationing sucks pond water. It means that I can get elective surgery in a hurry if I want it because I have access to deep pockets. But it comes at a cost of millions of people without access to routine health care, and hundreds of millions in wastage because those folks end up in ERs. That is the most expensive care there is, folks. And our system is structured to funnel the uninsured with a serious medical problem into the ER.
BC
The Chronicle of higher education: How the GI Bill (1944) changed Higher Education.
Bargain Countertenor @ 87
Coming from a “medical” family, I will say that some are saying that the HMOs have been killing mental health care. The carve outs are basically chop shops, IMHO.
You know, this is the one of the things I can’t stand about a good chunk of my fellow progressives. What is it with the constant push to pay for stuff by raising taxes for other people? If some thing’s worth raising taxes for then be willing to pay for it out of your pocket also, not just mine.
You’re so against the unfair taxation that taxes you more than the GOP’s million dollar a year income earning friends, yet you’re all for unfair tax policies if they’re unfair to someone else.
NPR just did the same as Gwen on Alex Chadwick’s show. No Democratic representation in the feature.
some_guy @ 90
Agreed @79. We would be penalizing the little guy who smokes. That is distasteful. And it’s rooted in paternalism, which I also find distasteful. How about penalizing war profiteers instead, like Blackwater and Halliburton ?
And having two Republicans debate insurance coverage, when the major health care reforms are all coming from Democrats, just doesn’t get it.
PBS did exactly as they were told to do. By whom? That’s the million dollar question. Smoke and mirrors, spin, and he said/she said journalism. PBS welcome to the world of corporate “journamalism”!
mui @ 89
I wish I could say I am surprised, but I’m not. Mental health care has always been the red-headed stepchild. And given the stress that our society puts on its members, it’s a serious problem.
There have been some attempts to put mental health on par with physiological health (notably Pete Domenici and the late, greatly missed Paul Wellstone), but obviously they haven’t succeeded.
BC
PBS and NPR are nothing but arms of the Administration’s Office of Propaganda. If you look at Media Matters today you’ll see a bit about Tom Bowman (Pentagon stenographer).
NPR has a series of “puff” on global warming called Climate Connections and when it first started there was a “tag” that went like this: How climate effects people and people effect climate. They dropped the how people effect climate and can not tell me how that occured. I have long been trying to get some one to do something about this BS. I smile when my local station (WHYY) has to extend their fundraisers and in the end accepted $10,000 from something called PharmaNet so they could even get close.
NPR in particular is being given a “free ride” by media watchdogs because they focus on obvious right-wing instances but PBS and NPR are subtle about their propaganda. I urge you all to refrain from contributing to these “networks”.
marjo @ 81
The “progressive answer” is the same as the “intellectually honest conservative” answer: CHAMP is a different program that should be separately evaluated on its own merits, and the discussion of CHAMP shouldn’t hold up reauthorization of SCHIP.
And before anyone asks, no, I don’t consider “intellectually honest conservative” to be an oxymoron. An endangered species, yes. An oxymoron, no.
some_guy @ 90
Hold up a sec, there, bunky. The funding mechanism was selected by Max Baucus and Chuck Grassley, the chair and ranking member of Senate Finance. Neither is likely to be mistaken for a progressive any time soon.
As a tax lawyer, I do have some issues, from a policy perspective, with using an increase in tobacco excise taxes as the funding mechanism. However, it appears to have one advantage over every other potential funding mechanism: it appears that veto-proof majorities in both houses of Congress will hold their noses and vote for it.
burnspbesq @ 97
Who cares who came up with it? I’m talking about the people I hear spouting the praises of paying for {insert project here} by raising cigarette taxes. And its not just this one bill, its all over the damn place.
Gwen Ifill went over to the dark side some while ago, methinks. Is she a death eater? You’d have to ask the dark lord, I expect.
Thanks for covering this, scarecrow. I watched PBS that evening and was initially appalled.
The ReThug Gov. did dispute that HHS cold-hearted hardass crony on the wisdom of cutting funds for kids’ health, but did so only as “a representative of the Governor’s caucus,” etc., refused to take on the topic of taxing big tobacco altogether.
PBS is ideologically nearly as bad as the rest of the MSM pack. However, they still produce material fitting for people w/ actual attention spans instead of the 14 sec. soundbite reports you get on most of the rest of TeeVee news.
PBS is now just another government organ. Long live NPR!
On the tobacco tax issue, I note that increasing taxes reduces smoking. For many progressives and for many personal responsibility conservatives, that is a desirable outcome. I know I have heard a bunch of moderate Republicans saying they hate it that their health insurance is paying for smokers, who increase costs and don’t pay their fair share.
masaccio @ 102
I don’t know if tobacco taxes actually reduces smoking. Smoking is an addiction, and is as complex an addiction to manage as say, her*in for instance.( Some people will probably be on metha*done maintenance for the rest of their lives.) What I do know is that making cigarettes prohibitively expensive like in NYC will create a sort of blackmarket (there are ways to get cheaper cigs in NYC.) To justify this, and say taxing reduces smoking is also highly paternalistic. And paternalistic government is a sliding slope of shit. The government should have monitored the quality of tobacco manufacture a long, long time ago. Its a little too little, too late.
As for smokers raising the cost of insurance, I laugh. There are many things that raise the cost of insurance. People living longer, for one and with chronic illnesses. Big Pharma is another. Emergency visits vs. preventative healthcare is another (you can thank HMO carve-outs for allowing seriously mentally ill persons only one visit a month to the shrink for some of that.) And so on. The insurance industry isn’t exactly innocent, nor are politicians in artificially raising the cost of healthcare. It is unseemly to point fingers at smokers for the rise in healthcare. Might as well point fingers at persons with some other chronic ilnesses that are considered the result of “lifestyle.” Or we can just be sane and humane and say it is no sin to be sick and tell polticians to suck it up.
mui @ 103
While certainly nicotine is very addictive, the tax is *very* useful in reducing youth smoking, and there are good stats on this. Kids who are at risk to start smoking turn out to be very price sensitive. So a tax on tobacco is very effective for this reason alone.
As for insurance rates and costs to the system: good stats for this alone. When a person smokes, he or she imposes costs on other people, not only from second hand smoke, but in terms of increased health costs, much of which other people will pay.
In neither case would I call the tax “paternalistic”. To the contrary, it’s just using a tax to make markets work better, by making the costs of smoking better reflected in the price of cigarettes.
some_guy @ 98
Good point. One of the primary things I think of when I think of various taxes is Liberalism. I don’t think that should be the hallmark of a Progressive agenda.
OTOH, there should probably be significant taxes on the gateway drug nicotine. If we can’t practically outlaw cigarettes (tried & failed), then making them less available to young folk will make it harder for them to ruin their lives starting at 10 or 12 years old.
OTOH, back to the child health bill, I agree funding should come out of the general revenue fund to show we’re all backing this program, not just cigarette suckers.
Progressives have got to be careful and not just fall in with Liberal approaches/tactics because it’s easy. We need to find enduring good things for the country and find common ground when it’s possible to get anyone else to support those policies/laws.