-
The Man With the Plan: April 2010
August 11, 2012 | 0 comments
-
A Wonk in Sheep’s Clothing
March 25, 2011 | 293 comments
-
Scapegoating Mitch Daniels
March 17, 2011 | 150 comments
-
Money Train
March 1, 2011 | 109 comments
-
The Race for Comparative Advantage
February 14, 2011 | 87 comments
Feature
The Matter With Myths
If conservatives don’t counter them, government-run health care will be here to stay.
(Page 3 of 4)
The Myth: Investing in preventive care will save money in the long run.
Why It Matters: President Obama has emphasized reducing costs in his push for expanding the role of government in health care, and he has cited preventive care as a key to cutting the nation’s medical expenses in the long term. The idea that by preventing illnesses we can avoid costly treatments down the road sounds intuitive. It’s a way of convincing the American people that there are certain commonsense measures we can take to save money and make people healthier at the same time, and thus justify the huge price tag of expanding health care coverage through government.
Obama spoke about the savings potential of preventive care during his campaign, and boasted that this year’s $787 billion economic stimulus package made “the largest investment ever in preventive care, because that is one of the best ways to keep our people healthy and our costs under control.”
The Reality: While the costs of treating an individual for a given illness may be exorbitant, the costs for testing, screening, and providing early treatment for millions of other people is often much higher.
As H. Gilbert Welch, a professor of medicine at the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, wrote in a New York Times op-ed last year, “Increasing the amount of testing for an ever-expanding list of problems always identifies many more people as having disease and still more as being ‘at risk.’ Screening for heart disease, problems in major blood vessels and a variety of cancers has led to millions of diagnoses of these diseases in people who would never have become sick.”
Overdiagnosis, Welch noted, in addition to incurring unnecessary costs, results in treatment such as surgery or prescription medication, both which have risks and potential side effects.
An article published in the New England Journal of Medicine last year took a more nuanced approach. Co-authors Joshua T. Cohen, Peter J. Neumann, and Milton C. Weinstein argued that preventive care can save money in certain instances, but it depends on the type of illness and who is being targeted.
Writing during last year’s election, the authors concluded that: “Our findings suggest that the broad generalizations made by many presidential candidates can be misleading. These statements convey the message that substantial resources can be saved through prevention. Although some preventive measures do save money, the vast majority reviewed in the health economics literature do not.”
Again, there are arguments to be made in favor of such measures, and no price can be put on a person’s peace of mind if they test negative for a devastating illness, but it is misleading to speak of preventive care as a magic bullet that will substantially reduce our nation’s health care costs.
*****
The Myth: Other countries spend less than the U.S., but get better health care in return.
Why It Matters: If Americans are convinced that government-run health care systems do a superior job of delivering and financing health care, they’ll be more open to the idea of expanding the role of government in the U.S.
“At the rate we’re going, we are expected to spend one-fifth of our economy on health care within a decade,” Obama said in May. “And yet we’re getting less for our money. In fact, we’re spending more on health care than any other nation on earth, even though millions of Americans don’t have the affordable, quality care they deserve, and nearly 46 million Americans don’t have any health insurance at all.”
The Reality: Other systems frequently cited by advocates of government-run health care don’t have magic wands; they set budgets and ration care to the sick. Tests such as CT scans and MRIs that are routinely performed in the U.S. are done with much less frequency in other systems. But while other nations may be able to keep the costs of medical care lower, they have other drawbacks.
When actress Natasha Richardson suffered a head injury in Quebec’s Mont Tremblant ski resort in March, she was forced to take a two-and-a-halfhour drive to the nearest trauma center, in Montreal, because a helicopter was not available. After her death, Daniel LeFrançois, director of Quebec’s prehospital care, told the Montreal Gazette that helicopters were expensive, and they weren’t used because medical resources were allocated according to “the biggest gain for the biggest need.” Shortly after Richardson’s death, CNN reported that a sevenyear- old Ohio girl, Morgan McCracken, survived a similar brain injury. McCracken was rushed by helicopter to a Cleveland hospital from her local emergency room in six minutes even though it would have only been a 30-minute ambulance ride.
About the Author
Philip Klein is The American Spectator’s Washington correspondent. You can follow him on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/Philipaklein
Melvin| 7.21.09 @ 7:49AM
I had the pleasure of going to the Makati Medial Center in Manila two years ago. I had to see a Dermatologist for a skin disorder. There was no appointment process, I just sat on the bench outside the doctors office. About an hour and a half I saw the doctor, she diagnosed my problem prescribed me medicine that was produced by Pfizer, and told me to come back in two weeks or call if my condition did not improve.
I was in her nice modern office for about twenty minutes and you know what it cost me? Fourteen dollars, yep fourteen dollars, and they asked if I had insurance.
I had this stunned look on my face and the doctor asked me, "You seem like you have a question to ask me?" I replied, "Yes, the cost of the treatment, its only fourteen dollars." The doctor smiled and commented that doctors in the Philippines have to malpractice to worry about, no lengthy government regulations like Medicare and Medicaid and allowed to practice medicine with minimal governmental interferences."
I visited three different doctors where I live and they couldn't figure out what my problem was, I went to the Philippines saw a doctor for twenty minutes, paid fourteen dollars and in one week my affliction was resolved.
Bottom line, if we keep government and its troupe of special interest carpet baggers out of our medical care the cost could come down where we could pay for non-catastrophic medical care.
Commercial Painting Contractor | 7.21.09 @ 8:04AM
There is obviously a lot more than this. Would you mind telling me how long it took you to gather your content? Please come visit my site Contractor Painter Business Directory when you got time.
Roy| 7.21.09 @ 8:33AM
Same deal in India - $5 for the doctor to diagnose my stomach problem. I estimate money goes about 6-10 times as far in India - so maybe $30-$50 here - oh noes.
Mattled| 7.21.09 @ 9:03AM
This morning NBC (I rarely ever turn them on) asked a follow up question to Obama on raising taxes. He said his would go up to help cover costs for "other folks" and people making 280k+. They shouldn't mind paying "a little extra".
Huh?
He really does take liberals for idiots. They know (Meredith Viera) full well that he and his family will have permanent, FREE, healthcare in addition to SS protection for the rest of their lives. He won't be paying a freakin dime while we suffer under his "center piece" legislation.
What a bunch of lap-dog buffoons we have in media. Allowing him (and other Libs---Barney Frank comes to mind) to constantly get away with this crud, someone should file a motion to have NBC lose their broadcast license.
Aaron| 7.21.09 @ 9:18AM
Great article Mr. Klein!
The Conservative leadership needs to tackle each one of these myths individually and loudly. This subject really isn't difficult to understand once you take the emotion out of the equation. And where are the Governors on this issue? I know a couple have spoken out (barely), but damn, really? How about a few more news conferences and press releases, (with substance) and a little less chica slap and tickle.
Pingback| 7.21.09 @ 9:20AM
Understanding the myths perpetrated by government in the health care debate links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Old Texican| 7.21.09 @ 9:44AM
Thanks Mr. Klein
...but how in the hell do we get the MSM to simply lay these facts out?
We can't get very far informing each other???
I swear, I can't see how we are going to beat this thing, so the next question in my mind is how in hell do we repeal it when the wheels come off?
William| 7.21.09 @ 10:29AM
Melvin - thank you for that. I have a family member who is one of the expendables in Obama's Turd Reich. I didn't have a lot of options for where to go when the Bolshevik Ds and the Menshevik Rs vote to pass this totalitarian eugenics bill.
Now I have another option.
PolishKnight| 7.21.09 @ 10:36AM
It's important to emphasize, even if it's only implied by the author, that the high cost of medical care in the USA is due directly, and indirectly, to government programs such as medicaid and medicare. It's a wonderful show-stopper for leftists preaching the cheap wonders of Canadacare and NHS when I point out that it won't work in the USA because we already have half of our budget set up that way already.
Next, regarding Melvin's experience, I agree that picking the right doctor is important but I don't blame any particular system. I went to 2 doctors for my wife's condition and the third one knew what he was doing in 5 minutes. Total cost of everything, plus surgery, was about $600.
Finally, it's worth emphasizing the impact of the John Edwards ambulance chaser lawsuits on medical costs both directly, in the form of liability insurance and for defensive medicine. Knowing this, I know to remind a doctor that I won't hold him responsible if he doesn't overtest and order him to not do so. Nobody told me that but I figured it out.
Marc Jeric| 7.21.09 @ 10:49AM
A few observations;
1) the article is very good but consists only of incidents, not philosopphy;
2) a trial lawyer sues a doctor and, if he loses, just walks away; in the rest of civilized world the loser must automatically pay the defendant's costs. A suitable tort reform would knock off about one trillion dollars/year in costs of malpractice insurance and defensive medicine;
3) Medicare and Medicaid recipients abuse doctor services (I calculated that an average older person with Medicare makes 33 doctor's visits per year - well, it costs them nothing, so why not?
4) Fraud by many doctors and hospitals in bills to Medicare and Medicaid - nobody is checking those bills, maybe once in a thousand bills.
5) Government health care in other developed countries is tolerated by the educated (what they call "cadres" in France) because there is a two-tier system there, one for the populace and one for the intelligentsia. I know that from personal experience - I was "cadre" in France and in England.
6) There is the County General Hospital in Los Angeles where Mexican mothers routinely come to give birth - tens of thousands every year. It costs them nothing and they have a baby that is a US citizen.
Enough for now - somebody should do a real investigation. Why should I pay for bureaucrats' decisions on what should be covered?
Bob| 7.21.09 @ 10:55AM
Excellent article, Klein. I enjoy articles based on fact. There are some minor points of disagreement, but you are absolutely correct that we would be much better off discussing health care based on a factual, not political, view of the problem.
Now, for the minor points of disagreement. First of all, most of the government coverage is for Medicare and Medicaid. Somehow making it seem like the government coverage is just like regular insurance coverage is a bit misleading. Half of all Medicare expenditures are for people in their last year of life. If you ration care for older people (like me), then you lower the cost dramatically.
The other major issue you didn't mention is pre-existing conditions. If you require insurance companies to include pre-existing conditions (which is needed for portability), then you will double the cost of insurance for everyone. (In insurance we call that adverse selection.) Is that what people actually want?
The reason people have a problem with healthcare is not related to their current coverage, but the ballooning costs. This is especially severe during the deep recession we have right now. People fear their ability to pay for health care in the future.
Lowering costs, then, is not magic. "Free market" solutions will raise the costs significantly because of the need for pre-existing conditions. The only real way of lowering costs is rationing. That will happen whether the solution is "free market" or government.
The other "fact" that is somewhat misleading is that a large proportion of those making $75K who don't have insurance is based on pre-existing conditions which raise the price of insurance to extremely high levels -- if they can get it at all.
Again, Philip, my points do not negate the thrust of your post. You are on target with your attempt to base our decisions on fact, not ideology. I love it....
Bob| 7.21.09 @ 11:00AM
Marc -- great points and on target. I'm actually in favor of not providing any free health care to illegals.
Old Texican| 7.21.09 @ 11:04AM
Bob you still can't get your arms around truths and fact can you?
Adverse selection only occurs if the coverage between different insurance companies varies.
If the risks are spread uniformly, the price would not vary much for people (families) during their productive years.
Too, a very large percentage of Americans during their working years are ALREADY covered for pre-existing conditions...under group insurance policies with no health questionaires.
Your premises are false.
Paul from SA| 7.21.09 @ 12:05PM
Philip Klein, great info, thanks.
#1 Myths (today)
#2 Flaws (tommorow?)
# 3 Solutions (Wed?)
How about it?
I'm one of those people who is burned by not getting my health insurance thru my employer. I pay the full amount, don't get a tax deduction and don't get the cost benefit of a group plan.
But, I choose my doctor and plan, and it's portable with no connection to employment or location.
My insurer just sent me a renewal offer which raised my premiums 36% to $315/mn ($4ooo total out-of-pocket). It's gone up 129% in 3 years -- with no health problems. I am subsidizing the sick, the poor, people who don't pay, and yes, people who get employer provided insurance. It's not fair. It's wrong.
We negogiated a new plan with a much higher deductible for $214/mn.
Yesterday, after talking to a 'health insurance broker', I found an equivalent plan for $143/mn and that price is locked in for 2 years. I'm going to call him this afternoon to make it final. If the gov't let me design a plan with the coverage I want, like auto insurance, I'll bet it would cost me half that amount. Reform malpractice abuses, fraud, get rid of illegal immigrants, and I'll bet it would be still much cheaper.
ObamaCare will not make our healthcare cheaper, faster, better, with higher quality and with more choices. It will be the opposite: more expensive, slower, rationed, lower quality, fewer choices.
As long as people can get free health care, we will continue to have a massive redistribution system to cover those who don't pay.
ObamaCare is 3 things:
1) redistribution of wealth
2) gov't control over citizens
3) benefit for Democrat special interests
Bob| 7.21.09 @ 12:11PM
Texican -- your "facts" about insurance are false. I actually worked in group insurance. First, adverse selection not only occurs between different insurance companies, but it also affects the population as a whole. Pre-existing conditions add to the actuarial cost of a policy. This occurs because those with pre-existing conditions who don't get company insurance, currently have limited policies or no insurance at all. Increasingly, small businesses and large businesses, like retailing, are NOT providing health insurance for "part-time" employees. As that trend continues, it has a dramatic affect on the cost of individual insurance. When I was in the business (and we sold our policies primarily to companies), pre-existing conditions were a very costly option. When you create a group policy, you do a company census to determine factors like average age, turnover, sex, etc. The cost of that group policy was actuarially determined by taking those things into account before a quote was given. This is not like individual insurance. If turnover was high, then we added a significant cost for hiring those with pre-existing conditions as those people were more likely to base their job choice on the availability of health coverage (i.e., adverse selection).
Your assumption that price would not vary much is not actuarially sound. I've been through the calculations -- have you? That's the problem with assumptions not based in fact.
However, I must say your issues are good ones if you haven't been through the calculations and actually sold group health insurance. Had I not been in the business and priced policies, I would have assumed exactly what you have. I've been out of the business for 5 years now, but when I was in an increase of 1% in those with pre-existing conditions raised the cost of group health to a company of about 20% since those with pre-existing conditions have almost 40 times the average expense of the people without them. That's why virtually all individual policies exclude these people.
Now, if you want to move to portable policies, that means people will be covered by individual policies which will be far more expensive because you cannot control that "census". Furthermore, given that a company census is fairly predictable and the group health insurance market is highly competitive already, pricing is aggressive and margins are slim. Individual policies carry far more company risk and far higher margins to account for that risk.
If you know a group health actuary, let him show you how the prices change. You will be very surprised.
But that said, that was a very good response -- one I would have made myself had I not had inside experience.
Pingback| 7.21.09 @ 12:18PM
The real reason behind the economic meltdown – government (particularly Democrats) « links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Old Texican| 7.21.09 @ 1:13PM
Bob
you are wrong again. I spent five years writing health, GROUP, and life insurance with New York
Life. Yes, they sold their health division to Aetna, but with many of the same splendid people.
Yes
Our insurance industry needs some parity regulation to AVOID adverse selection.
BUT
right here in Texas...It is illegal to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions in most cases.
Tony in Central PA| 7.21.09 @ 1:26PM
We already have socialized medicine to a significant degree, but if we accept what this Administration wants and go 100%, the ranks of competent physicians will be seriously depleted. This is already a trend. My sister - in - law is an attending MD in a residency program and she has repeatedly stressed over the past ten years how the intelligence and motivation of the applicants to her program have steadily declined. Either medicine is no longer attracting the Best and Brightest, or there aren't as many as there used to be. Socializing the system isn't going to reverse this problem.
Al Adab| 7.21.09 @ 1:53PM
Facts are stubborn things , but oviously they must not be allowed to interfere with ideology. Health care, hate crimes, Cap and Trade, Sotomayor, et al all demonstrate the fact.
Here lies the problem, our government now is driven by those whose view of the world is distorted by preconcieved notions of "truth". Not only are the "problems" preselected but so are the "answers/solutions"
That is why these bills, like the stimulus, pass without reading. What a mad rush to judgement. Our old friend Thomas Paine was right, "These are the times that try mens' souls."
ben| 7.21.09 @ 2:00PM
Let the insurance companies insure whoever they want, pre-existing conditions or not. Let the insured pick who they get insurance from - by price and coverage. Some insurance companies will exclude those with pre-existing conditions some won't. This will create a new market for high risk people. Those people will pay higher costs because there will be higher costs for their care. This is the same as auto insurance where many companies exclude high risk drivers to keep their costs down for the rest of us. High risk drivers can still get insurance, it just costs them more which is reasonable as they will cost the insurance company more. Insurance companies like all companies are in business to make money. I say let them all compete for it.
Old Texican| 7.21.09 @ 2:09PM
ben
Hey dude! You are making too much sense here. That will never fly. (grin)
I wouldn't even mind giving folks with pre-existing conditions a subsidy. (yeah yeah I am a closet compassionate conservative.)
Paul from SA| 7.21.09 @ 2:37PM
ben| 7.21.09 @ 2:00PM,
Yes!, unleash the insurance companies and they'll supply the market with what people demand.
Old Texican| 7.21.09 @ 3:02PM
Hey Paul...does that SA stand for San Antone?
Bob| 7.21.09 @ 3:21PM
Texican -- I guess our experiences were different. I was responsible for both product development and sales of both group and individual products. Group products varied some, but individual products varied a great deal. We had companies with high turnover whose rates were twice that of companies with low turnover. Part of the difference was pre-existing conditions and the other part based on actuarial experience. We sold primarily to small and medium sized businesses. If you are talking about large businesses, I would agree with you. However, we never covered pre-existing conditions unless the state required it or the company paid a premium for it. We sold in all 50 states.
Perhaps our differences come from our individual experiences. It would be nice to get some real facts on the table so that good policy can be set.
Pete| 7.21.09 @ 4:16PM
Bob,
Can you lay out your entire career path for us? Already, from your posts, you were an executive who oversaw mortgage underwriting (and could therefore unquestionably assert that CRA had nothing to do with the financial crisis) and now a Healthcare exec with inside insight into what will and won't work. I just want to know which subjects to avoid.
Thanks,
Pete
Paul from SA| 7.21.09 @ 4:55PM
Old Texican,
Howdy. Yep, San Antonio.
Ed Wallis| 7.21.09 @ 5:14PM
A fine video to go with a fine article:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqMKK8AoLCw&feature=player_embedded
Len| 7.21.09 @ 6:10PM
THE BIGGEST MYTH: Government involvement in health is legal/allowed by the US constitution.
Why it matters: Our money is being taken for the PRIVATE good of specific peoples, and creates extra burdens for people without their consent. It also drains wealth from this country by giving free health care to people who turn around and with the money saved through this, send money to people in other countries. For example, 40 BILLION sent to Mexico by individuals, not the government.
The reality:
There are three purposes in Article 1, Section 8 of the US constitution for which powers are delegated. Let me say that again before getting to the substance of my comment, there are three purposes, these in of themselves are not powers, but powers are delegated for them. One is Common Defense, which is not particularly germane here, another is to pay the debt(WHOA!!!!!really missing the boat there), and the third is the general welfare of WHAT?? the UNITED STATES, not the people, the states.
Anyone who actually chooses to read the US constitution can plainly see that the powers are for the states. Common coinage "To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;" This produces confidence and enables commerce by having sound money that is good in all the states.
Interstate commerce, "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes". This enables the states to trade goods with others without being overly taxed by those states which had the advantage of not needing to go through a state with goods.
Interstate travel and shipping, "To establish Post Offices and post Roads". This benefits the states by growing the means of intercourse between them, promoting trade and general common interaction.
There is also full faith and credit, privileges and immunities, but one can see that this all meant to enable the states to have commercial intercourse with other to promote the GENERAL WELFARE. NO OTHER POWERS HAVE BEEN GRANTED! The US constitution, that LEGALLY BINDING document shows that congress and the president are not to dictate to the states or the people how to conduct business, or take over businesses, and certainly not to take away peoples fruit of labor to benefit others. So again both parties by continually assuming powers never granted have contributed to the ruin of this country by continually expanding the role of "government" to reach into all areas of life.
Old Texican| 7.21.09 @ 6:42PM
NewsMax editorial today...critical reading!!!!!!!
Phil Brennan writes the best article I have seen on where we are as a country.....
IN CIVIL WAR!
Marcell| 7.21.09 @ 7:07PM
Lewis Black destroys GOP talking points on health care
by BruinKid
Tue Jul 21, 2009 at 01:55:39 PM PDT
http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?videoId=233178
You Repubs are about to lose the healthcare debate.
More Repug Bologna | 7.21.09 @ 7:14PM
Obama’s Health Plan Akin to Civil War
Tuesday, July 21, 2009 1:40 PM
By: Phil Brennan Article Font Size
"There is no substitute for victory."
Douglas MacArthur
If anybody out there doubts that this nation is involved in a new civil war they had better take a careful look at President Barack Obama's legislative agenda and the weapons he's deploying to ram it through. That agenda is a poorly disguised attempt to destroy the United States as we know it and convert it into an authoritarian, socialist regime with all power centered in Washington D.C. And in the sainted United Nations.
If we are to survive this full-press onslaught against our constitutional republic and our God-given rights as a free people living under the rule of law, it is essential that the handful of Republicans in the House and Senate understand that in a civil war all the rules of civilized discourse and legislative courtesy must be suspended, to be replaced by unrelenting resistance on the part of those under attack.
Since taking office, Obama has rammed through the House two major pieces of legislation that are right out of Karl Marx's socialist playbook, the ill-titled cap-and-trade bill and his plan for socialized medicine. If the Senate acquiesces, both of these measures will become law and the U.S. will have taken major steps on Obama's march toward converting this republic into an authoritarian socialist state under the thumb of an all-powerful U.N.
Comrade Gore made no bones about the cap-and-trade measure. Citing the bill, Gore announced that while it would cause utility bills to, in Obama's words, "skyrocket," he said, "Those taxes are good, but it is the awareness itself that will drive the change, and one of the ways it will drive the change is through global government and global agreements.”
Get that? Global government!
In 1997, in my study "The Iceman Cometh," I wrote that "behind all the rhetoric about global warming and mankind's culpability for this [allegedly] impending disaster is a shrewdly planned campaign to inflict a lot of socialistic restrictions on our cherished freedoms."
Environmentalism, I explained, "is the last refuge of socialism," and noted that "it was no accident that one of those in the forefront of the global warming alarmism is one Mikhail Gorbachev, an unrepentant socialist who appears to believe if you can't lick 'em one way, find another."
Under the guise of saving the planet from a kind of self-inflicted incineration Comrade Gore and company sought to impose some of the most Draconian restrictions on our liberties ever contemplated.
I warned that the debate over global warming is the most crucial Americans have faced since the Cold War ended with the demise of what now appears to have been the first phase in the ongoing attempt to build a world socialist order. That attempt was brutal and overt — the communists made no secret about their plans to bury us, by force if necessary but the latest power grab by the left is far more subtle — and covert.
Obama is halfway there with cap-and-trade and his plan for socialized medicine. Only the Senate stands in the way of these Draconian measures becoming the law of the land. They must be stopped there or we're well on the way to a Marxist future and the loss of individual freedom that will entail.
I believe that the real battleground in the war will be the floor of the House, now firmly in the hands of the ultra-left wing of the Democratic party. If freedom is to survive, it must be defended there.
Granted that the Republican minority is vastly outnumbered, but they must wage a rear-guard action, using every parliamentary trick in the book to grind the legislative wheels to a halt. Back when the GOP was a mere corporal's guard in the ’60s the late Rep. H.R. Gross stood like Horatius at the bridge, challenging every spendthrift measure under debate. In his lonely battle he saved the taxpayers tens of billions of dollars over the course of his House career.
He should stand as an example to the House Republicans, who if the nation is to survive Obama's efforts to remake America into a version of European socialist governments must dig in their heels and bring the Democrat-controlled House to a grinding halt.
That's right. A grinding halt where nothing — and I mean nothing — gets done until the 2010 congressional elections are over and the voters have sent the socialists packing.
You ask if the nation survive if the lower House of Congress ceases to legislate. Of course we can - remember Will Rogers' sage comment that "this country has come to feel the same when Congress is in session as when the baby gets hold of a hammer."
We need to take that hammer away from them. America breathes a sigh of relief when Congress is not in session and their lives and fortunes and liberties are no longer threatened.
I remind the embattled Republicans and those few level-headed conservative Democrats who should be their natural allies in the battle against making America a socialist state that the only alternative to victory is defeat. That's what's at stake here and they had better recognize it and do what they can to save us all.
Faugh 'a ballagh!
Phil Brennan writes for Newsmax.com. He is editor and publisher of Wednesday on the Web and was Washington columnist (Cato) for National Review magazine in the 1960s. He is a trustee of the Lincoln Heritage Institute and a member of the Association For Intelligence Officers. He can be reached at pvb@pvbr.com.
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
ds80| 7.21.09 @ 7:42PM
Marcell: "... destroys GOP talking points on health care ... by BruinKid"
... on www.comedycentral.com
That's as funny (and credible) as:
"Repubs are about to lose the healthcare debate"
Alan Brooks| 7.21.09 @ 8:23PM
PLEASE don't run a RINO in '12 with the slogan "compassionate healthcare".
Jeb is doing 'research' (figures lie and liars figure) right now.
Alan Brooks| 7.21.09 @ 8:25PM
Jeb hears 'Hail To The Chief' playing in his head.
Pingback| 7.21.09 @ 8:36PM
Shouting from the Rooftops to be Heard in the Debate over Health Care « Beagle Scout links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 7.21.09 @ 9:05PM
Shouting from the Rooftops to be Heard in the Debate over Health Care - LJMiller96’s links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Old Texican| 7.21.09 @ 10:35PM
Repug.....
Thank you for the paste. I was not sure copyrights would allow it the same day.
If you folks out there don't quite understand yet that we are at war...get over it.
Our President is committing TREASON every single day.
What do we do now?
GG | 7.21.09 @ 11:48PM
Facts are stubborn things , but oviously they must not be allowed to interfere with ideology. Health care, hate crimes, Cap and Trade, Sotomayor, et al all demonstrate the fact.
Here lies the problem, our government now is driven by those whose view of the world is distorted by preconcieved notions of "truth". Not only are the "problems" preselected but so are the "answers/solutions"
That is why these bills, like the stimulus, pass without reading. What a mad rush to judgement. Our old friend Thomas Paine was right, "These are the times that try mens' souls."
Al Adab| 7.22.09 @ 11:31AM
GG,
Thanks for the compliment. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. And it is true, the facts will out and ultimately win.
kat| 7.22.09 @ 1:38PM
so insurance is too expensive because insurers are required to cover Lockjaw?
Lockjaw is caused by tetanus, which seems to fall pretty squarely under the list of legitimate ailments.
Rod Davis | 7.22.09 @ 1:59PM
Please explain the difference between 46 million without insurance and 36 million without insurance.
Classic Republican tactic... comment in such as away as to detract from the truth by saying that something is a distortion of the truth and therefore is not true.
Health care unlike the Iraqi War is a real crisis in America. It is just another part of the economy that has been exploited by greed at the expense of the American public.
The Republican Party is good at running up the debt, evidenced by Bush's economic negligence, but when it comes to remedying the situation under a Democratic effort, you want to fight ever effort as if doing so is against your morals.
All of you need to grow up and consider the good of America first and foremost with your patriotic BS.
Elizabeth| 7.22.09 @ 2:41PM
Has this country's governmental body lost all of their senses.......How dare they impose such a restrictive "tax" in the name of global warming, perpetuating this hoax to the point of the downfall of American life as we have known it.....It seems to me that we went through this several years ago with a BTU tax that you tried to pass, and that one was shot down. Are they in congress giving any consideration to the many lives it will destroy with this. We will lose more of our industry to overseas where they will not impose this on their citizens. (China and India for example). I think it time that our legislative body remembers who they represent and considers the impact such a bill will have on us. How can you even consider this knowing that it will only lower the temperature by 0.1 celcius, over a period of many years. I live in Michigan and let me tell you, that from where we stand it isn't warmer, it is getting colder......Can you explain this.
You need to stop this ridiculous nonsense and start working on issues that are destroying our country now. Unemployment, Our economy, loss of our dollar value, which declines each time you run the printer. Loss of Our business's, that can't handle the restrictions and regulations and high taxes imposed on them..How do you propose we as Americans earn a living so that we may pay "your" salaries and keep you in the style you have all become accustomed to. Its time you paid attention to the "People", who work hard each day, are "honest", pay their taxes and are "law" abiding citizens, rather than the special interests you all seem to be so entangled with. It is time that we americans are heard and not just as a means to support all of the whims of a few......This is a great country and we as citizens of a free society intend to keep it that way.
You shouldn't get too complacent about your positions in our government body as 2010 is approaching and we will show our power at the ballot box.
I implore you to do the right thing for America and stop destroying any chance we have of pulling out of this devastation.......
Had Enough| 7.22.09 @ 8:31PM
Moral obligation my A**. The only moral obligation I have is to my family. Not some illegal or free loader.
Had Enough| 7.22.09 @ 8:35PM
Obama is on tv lying as I type.You can always tell when he is lying to the American people, His lips are moving.
Pingback| 7.23.09 @ 9:21PM
46 Million and 8.2 Million Uninsured Myths Busted « The Western Experience links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
in_awe| 7.24.09 @ 1:44PM
on 7-21-09 Bob said:
"The other major issue you didn't mention is pre-existing conditions. If you require insurance companies to include pre-existing conditions (which is needed for portability), then you will double the cost of insurance for everyone. (In insurance we call that adverse selection.) Is that what people actually want?"
I'm not sure how providing coverage for pre-existing conditions will double the cost for everyone. Presumably, most people with pre-existing conditions currently are covered under either employer provided plans or Medicare/Medicaid. If that is is the case then the cost of covering them is already embedded in existing premiums or program costs. Where it becomes an issue is when someone with a pre-existing condition loses their employer plan and don't qualify for an existing government plan. They are left out of the healthcare system entirely - or admitted only if they are able to pay truly sky-high premiums. A risk pool approach or subsidized premiums would address this problem without overturning the apple cart of our existing healthcare system.
As to whether people want to pay to provide coverage for others with pre-existing conditions, the same could be asked about a myriad of conditions that are covered under any plan. Does everyone want to pay the extra premium dollars to cover pregnancies, abortions, rehab costs, mental health counseling, etc. for others?
Is your solution to kick to the curb anyone with a pre-existing solution and let them fend for themselves? Sounds disturbingly like the eugenics movement's answer practiced in the US in the early 20th century and worrisomely still advocated by Obama's recently appointed chief science advisor.
Hardius| 7.24.09 @ 6:09PM
I believe that there are only two things wrong with
the United States, they are the Democrats and the
Republicans. Until this issue is resolved nothing
wholesome is going to happen in this nation.
For me the downside of Obama-care is that it puts
the FDA and health care under the same roof, with
the greedy pharmaceutical cartels on one side and a corrupt Congress on the other side.
How terrified should I be with these groups choosing my health care and life span?
Are we asking several packs of wolves to guard the hen house?
Pingback| 7.30.09 @ 1:16PM
Errors of Enchantment » Debunking Some Health Care Myths links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 8.19.09 @ 10:13AM
Healthcare links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
gfbvx| 8.24.09 @ 10:05PM
drinkdrink
Pingback| 12.22.09 @ 10:16AM
HI, MY NAME IS ‘HEALTH CARE,’ DO YOU WANT SOME CANDY? – suzyrice.com links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
poptropica | 4.9.10 @ 9:23PM
I’ll have a Poptropica full written walkthrough very soon, but in the meantime, here are some answers to some of the frequently asked questions about Mythology Island. Having trouble? Post a question in the comments and I’ll try to answer it!
Getting Hercules to Help You Poptropica
Hercules won’t help you until you have all five items from Zeus’ quest. Once you have the five items, bring them to Athena. Zeus will appear and steal them. The big jerk! Once this happens, talk to Athena and she will tell you that Hercules will help you. You’ll need to have the magic mirror from Aphrodite because Hercules doesn’t want to have to walk. He’s so lazy!
Getting the Hydra Scale poptropica
You can see how to do this in the videos, but basically you need to jump up when the Hydra is about to strike. He will rear one of his heads back to attack and his eyes will bulge out. poptropica
When this happens, jump up in the air and then try to land on top of his head. That head will get knocked out. When all five heads get knocked out, the Hydra will be asleep and you can click on him to get one of the scales. poptropica
I’ll have a full written walkthrough very soon, but in the meantime, here are some answers to some of the frequently asked questions about Mythology Island. Having trouble? Post a question in the comments and I’ll try to answer it!poptropica
guo | 7.1.10 @ 5:14AM
www.wmvconverterformac.com
ブランド 財布 | 1.5.11 @ 2:51AM
http://modern-bags.com
コピーブランド | 1.5.11 @ 2:55AM
http://www.ekopibrand.com
コピーブランド | 1.5.11 @ 3:06AM
http://www.brand-sale.com/
ブランド激安 | 1.5.11 @ 3:07AM
■http://www.brand-sale.com/
ブランド激安 | 1.5.11 @ 3:14AM
http://www.brand-sale.com/