The American Spectator

S.L. Toddard| 2.26.10 @ 8:06AM

Oof - caught lying, straight up.

Troll Rehab| 2.26.10 @ 8:23AM

Oof. Careful, your slip is showing.

Albert A. Turner| 2.26.10 @ 8:54AM

Wear their false claim as a badge of honor, Mr. Klein.
It's hard, very hard, reading what they write, but, somebody has to keep tabs on those kooks. How in the world did they come up with that name, Media Matters?

ggoblue| 2.26.10 @ 9:12AM

pravda and tass were already taken.

Bob| 2.26.10 @ 9:56AM

Philip, since I worked in the industry, I can say you are absolutely correct. However, to gain a perspective on this, most people don't really know if they have a group or individual policy -- they just have health insurance. Thus, the qualifications we heard make both sides "technically" correct if they use the proper verbage. But what is important is to realize that over 80% of health insurance are group policies at group rates. The reason group rates are lower is more than its just a large group of people. Generally, people who are gainfully employed by a large company are in better health than all other individuals. In addition, the median age in group policies is lower than that of individual policies thus lowering the cost.

On the other hand, the high risk pools talked about by Republicans is a fantasy. High risk, even if subsidized, means high rates -- anywhere from 3 to 5 TIMES higher than group policies. That's one of the reasons we have Medicare as individual policies for retired old people (like me) would be unaffordable.

Neither side has clean hands in this, but certain Republicans, like Ryan and Kyl tend to be technically more correct. There is no question that it would be far cheaper for the country to have Medicare for everyone. But then rationing becomes an issue and that is something that does not seem quite "American". That's one of the reasons I continually propose a hybrid system where basic and emergency care is universal and everything else, including doctors visits are done by private insurance. That way we can lower costs and still have individual choice in policies.

By the way, the Republicans are wrong in talking about individual portability of group plans -- there can be no such thing by the simple definition of a "group". When a health insurance company makes a group bid, they take a "census" of the group to determine rates. A younger group gets lower rates than an older group. A white collar company gets lower rates than a mostly blue collar company. If you now add portability, you will no longer get low group rates and everyone who has employer based plans will see their rates grow by at least 30-50%. Is that really what most people want?

L. Ross| 2.26.10 @ 10:50AM

Well put, Bob.

Ken (Old Texican)| 2.26.10 @ 11:48AM

Bob,
I must congratulate you.
I do not know if your numbers are correct or not, but your thoughts are finally coherent.

Thank you.

Bob| 2.26.10 @ 1:32PM

Ken, whether you like it or not, you're stuck with me as a fiscal conservative and a social libertarian. I don't want the government in my pockets or pants and believe that we should let individuals make their own moral decisions as much as possible -- and that includes abortion and gay marriage.

I also go where the numbers, facts, and data take me and don't like this ideology game. Believe it or not, even though I don't believe tax cuts are stimulative because the data doesn't support that conclusion, I believe in strong conservatism in fiscal matters. I'm a penny pincher and I want my government to do the same.

On the health care bill, it is a piece of junk. While few Republicans really have any ideas of merit, the Democrat ideas will bankrupt us -- and with 7 grandchildren, that bothers me. Since I am an atheist and don't believe in life after death, it is what I leave my progeny that is important to me. I want them to have a better life than me.

And yes, most of the time I think your thoughts are incoherent as well.... (Smile.....)

SoCon| 2.26.10 @ 2:40PM

Wow! Old Tex got a 'smile' out of the old CURmudgeon.

How's that Obama vote of yours workin' out for you, Bob?

Bob| 2.26.10 @ 2:50PM

Better than your vote for the two dunces....

SoCon| 2.26.10 @ 3:34PM

Yes, your vote for Obonehead and Doofus Biden must make you so proud. LOL.

Bob| 2.26.10 @ 6:24PM

Yes. Over dim-witted and clueless Sarah and blow a gasket and don't think McCain... Besides, after Republicans, in control of the White House and Congress gave tax cuts but did not cut spending, I didn't think they deserved another term. They blew the debt all to hell. If you don't punish wrongdoing, you are complicit in their crime.

But then again, you don't value reason and good thinking, do you?

SoCon| 2.26.10 @ 7:54PM

You mean the reason and good thinking that led you, a 'RINO', to vote for a socialist doofus?

No, I guess not--that distinction is all yours, Bob.

Ralph Novy| 2.26.10 @ 12:25PM

Yes, well put, Bob -- especially "There is no question that it would be far cheaper for the country to have Medicare for everyone. But then rationing becomes an issue and that is something that does not seem quite 'American'."

From my point of view, unfair rationing of health care under a "single payer" program WOULD be a legitimate concern/objection -- EXCEPT THAT we already have unfair rationing, at the hands of the insurance companies. Now, I'm not fond of the idea of being jacked around or out-and-out stomped on by either government OR corporate bureaucrats, but it seems to me that adding a profit motive to the mix is probably not a good idea if fairness is your goal.

So, on grounds of BOTH fiscal efficiency AND fairness in allocation, I would submit that "Medicare for all" is the way to go.

And I see nothing "un-American" in that.

At any rate, thanks for your thoughtful, temperate contribution.

Bob| 2.26.10 @ 1:41PM

Ralph, in business I specialized in new business development in a number of industries. We lead the world in innovation and that comes from the freedom to pursue ideas on our own. Yes, the profit motive in health insurance is a negative, but it certainly is not a negative in auto insurance which is mandated by all states. There is significant price competition in auto insurance as you know. There is no reason the same can't be done in health insurance. That said, because of adverse selection in insurance, the companies will compete for the most profitable customers and thus those with sustained medical problems will be prices out of the market. That's why I would propose a hybrid solution where those who are priced out could have a "public option" (i.e., Medicare). That would allow individual choice and also coverage for all who needed it. If someone wanted to pay more for a "Cadillac" plan, they could. If someone wanted to pay less, they could go bankrupt. Yes, there would have to be minimum policy standards as there is in auto insurance, but the free market could work a lot better.

The "un-American" comment comes from the political reality that people do want to make their own decisions and that Medicare is not solvent right now and won't be anytime in the near future.

Ralph Novy| 2.27.10 @ 1:09PM

Bob:

Just a few points:

1. Your auto insurance example is a good one -- except that we don't "need" autos in the same way we "need" good health.

2. I don't see how your "hybrid" solution fundamentally differs from the "universal" health-care solutions of, say, Canada, UK, France, Germany, etc. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.....alth_care.) Perhaps "single payer" is creating a bugaboo here?

3. I really don't see that providing "universal" health care (using the alternate term) will undermine individual decision-making.

4. The question of Medicare's "solvency" seems pretty thorny. Some say it's insolvent NOW; some say it might not be insolvent till 2030; etc. My thought is that if Medicare is currently insolvent, so is the DOD, notably. Where are our priorities?

Cheers.

Ralph

RoseGrower| 2.26.10 @ 8:38PM

Ralph - you claim that we now have "unfair rationing (of health care) by insurance companies." When has an insurance company demanded that a patient forego having a pacemaker implanted and take pain pills instead? This was the answer Pres. Obama gave to the woman who asked if a government health care plan would have covered a pacemaker for her 80 year old mother. Under our current system, an insurance company can choose not to cover a procedure, but that doesn't stop the individual from making other arrangements with a physician in order to receive the procedure. Under government controlled health care, it would be illegal to go outside the system - the choice here is "do it our way or die." Today, Medicare recipients often carry supplemental health insurance to cover those procedures the government won't. With your idea of "Medicare for all," what is the likelihood that there will be any private sector insurance available to fill in the gaps? And Ralph, if you have read Ezekiel Emmanuel's white paper on how best to impose a single-payer system, you'll understand that one of the goals of government-controlled health care advocates is to eliminate those individuals who are the greatest drains on resources.

Ralph Novy| 2.27.10 @ 1:28PM

RoseGrower:

1. Check out the more complete version of Obama's response to the woman at the town hall:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....._embedded#
The makes it clear he wasn't talking about her mother or people in her situation/condition.

2. Where did you get the idea that obtaining "outside" or "supplemental" health care/insurance would become ILLEGAL under a single-payer (or "universal") system. I haven't heard ANYBODY propose that (except maybe Quebec). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care for a pretty good analysis of how it's been successfully implemented.

3. It's VERY likely -- in fact, quite certain -- that insurers will still be around to sell at least supplemental health-care policies. Again, see the the article I just referenced.

4. If by "Emmanuel's white paper" you mean the "Complete Lives System," THAT only dealt with scarce-source transplant situations, NOT single-payer/universal health care generally. For a LONG discussion of Emmanuel's actual views and how Betsy McCaughey dishonestly distorted them in her much-circulated "Doctor Death" article, see the entry in Wikipedia on Emmanuel. (Sorry, but that would be my third link, and it's not allowed....lol.)

Anyway.... have a look at the sources I've cited. There are some interesting facts and insights in there. Might allay at least some of your concerns.

Regards. Hope your roses do well.

Ralph

Steve the Soothsayer| 2.26.10 @ 12:35PM

I suspect that most people are aware of whether they have a group policy or not. Portability is not only possible, but actually occurs in today's environment under the COBRA program, wherein former employees are permitted to retain the policies at group rates for up to 36 months in some cases. The problem is that such group rates are still not affordable to most workers after their employer's subsidies are discontinued. There would, however, be no problem in extending COBRA-type portability until or unless the separated employee discontinues the plan voluntarily. Such extension would be virtually transparent to the carriers and the former employers if premiums could be paid directly to the carriers.

Bob| 2.26.10 @ 1:48PM

Actually, Steve, after working in the business, most people don't know the difference between group insurance and individual insurance. If you've ever read the policies (I've written hundreds of them), there is very little difference between them.

As for group rates, business used the enticement of health insurance to keep salaries low. If we now move to individual policies, most people's rates would rise dramatically and they would probably not get a salary increase to cover that cost.

Have you ever had COBRA? You pay the total bill, not just the employee portion. Thus, let's say you pay $800 per month as an employee with a family. Your COBRA payment could be as high as $2,000 per month. It sounds good in theory, but when you get down to the individual, it will cause problems.

For individual policies and portability to work, salaries would have to be raised significantly to be payment neutral -- and most businesses would not do that.

DanMingo| 2.26.10 @ 8:26PM

The point at issue, which involved how much premiums might rise for various classes of consumers under the Senate and House bills, might sound somewhat technical. But Obama was right: the CBO study indicated that premiums would go down as much as 20 percent for families receiving the same coverage they buy now -- and would go up for those who sought better coverage.

DanMingo| 2.26.10 @ 8:28PM

The above was a quote from a Joe Conason article, just so you know there are other sides to the story and nobody lied.

Janice| 2.27.10 @ 1:01AM

I think the real issue is the data onwhich the CBO made his decision was faulty. It was the data the repubs challenged.

Faulty data = faulty decision.

Prices NEVER GO DOWN when the government gets involved; ObamaCare will be no different.

David Blake| 2.26.10 @ 10:19AM

Media Matters/David Brock are puppets of the George Soros machine. What can you expect but distortions and lies.

David Jack Smith| 2.26.10 @ 10:27AM

"And here was my take yesterday, right-wing propagandist that I am:"

Mr Klein aren't you a VAST right-wing propagandist.

Or are you on a diet?

MattZ| 2.26.10 @ 11:02AM

Hey,
Maybe the US should just move to single-payer like the rest of the industrialized world and then nobody will have to worry about stupid, specious arguments about premiums. Or is that too socialist for you patriots who can abide millions of uninsured but can't stand it when terrorists have their day in court?
MZ

David Jack Smith| 2.26.10 @ 11:20AM

Hey dimbulb Matt. You sound like a fully paid up member of the lumpen Marxetariat.

Tell you what Matty, you can come to the UK anyday and get shite healthcare. Take my place. Please.

Or is that too socialist for an ignorant prick who wants to prosecute Bush attorneys but loves it when terrorists walk free.

Pete| 2.26.10 @ 11:20AM

I love the smell of Euro-stool in the morning.

Ellis Wyatt| 2.26.10 @ 11:36AM

Obama got caught with his pants down yesterday and was embarrassed by the GOP and their "prop", aka the Obamacare bill. You are spot on Mr. Klein and the fact that Media Matters is even discussing it tells me that they know that the public knows Obama looked like an idiot.

Kay B. Day| 2.26.10 @ 1:40PM

Aside from basing your statement on facts, we might suggest to our 'progressive' friends that applying common sense can be very useful.

In the 60s, Democrats said Medicare and Medicaid costs would not be an issue. Yet removal of large sectors of the market increased costs for those of us who receive no government subsidies. Both bills, even if combined into a hybrid, will do the same.

I'd also note that expecting reasoned analysis from Media Matters is a bit like expecting my fat hound dog to reject a treat because he's worried about the calories.
best to all, KBD

Bob| 2.26.10 @ 1:55PM

Expecting reasoned analysis from Media Matters is actually more probable than getting it from Fox News, Rush or Beck. But that aside, the problem with your statement is that the reason Medicare costs so much is that people are living longer and health care costs are rising faster than expected. In addition, we won't let people die with dignity in this country. Did you know that almost half of Medicare expense comes in the last year of life? Doctors are afraid to give people the death option and of course, we have lawyers. We could cut the Medicare costs in half by indexing the age to life expectancy and having tort reform. The average life expectancy at the initiation of Medicare was 65. Now, it is 73. That should be when Medicare starts.

SoCon| 2.26.10 @ 2:49PM

Care to add some proof with your liberal whine?

Media Matters is known as a Soros driven propagandistic tool of the left. Brock is just a bitter ex-TAS writer who went over to the dark side.

Red Eye's Greg Gutfeld regularly skewers the lying nitwit in his 'robots' features. Hilarious.

ME| 2.26.10 @ 3:21PM

"Die with dignity" is just a code word for "give up and get out of the way." It's nonsense to say that someone's death is more dignified because they wanted it or because a docotor didn't try harder to keep them alive. Dignity is about as useful a term in these regards as "person" is when pro-choicers refuse to apply it to an unborn human being.

All Medical costs are up, which will naturally inflate Medicare costs. Letting elderly people die (which will inevitably result in the hastened deaths of some, including some who will be denied treatment based on some bureaucrat or uninvolved doctor) is not a solution to anyone's costs, it's just a way to set aside responsibility for the people who will be disposed of.

Bob| 2.26.10 @ 6:20PM

So let me get this right. Let's put the old codger on a respirator and a dialysis machine, put him in ICU, and pay 15 docs their salaries. Do I have this right?

Let's talk about the conservative logic here. Do you believe health care is a privilege, not a right? I do. Do you believe in contracts? I do. So if you have a policy with limited coverage, you shouldn't get care should you?

The fact is our expensive technology and medications extend life far more than in the past and this increases medicare dramatically. If you believe we should spend any amount of money on an individual to keep them alive, then you are not a fiscal conservative, you are a liberal bleeding heart.

Personally, I don't want to live where my quality of life is being attached to machines rather that being out seeing my grandchildren and living an active life.

You are certainly NOT a conservative.

SoCon| 2.26.10 @ 7:56PM

Only a lying liberal bleeding heart would defend Soros' Media Matters. Doesn't do much for your 'RINO' cred, Bob.

Bob| 2.26.10 @ 8:10PM

And only a knuckle dragger would support Palin. I don't support either Media Matters or Fox News -- they both have so much bias that then end result are lies. The same is true with MSNBC. You're problem, SoCon, is that you drunk too much of the KoolAid and it has lowered your brain activity.

Knuckle Dragger| 2.27.10 @ 12:12AM

Personally, I don't want to live where my quality of life is dependent on some GS-5 apparatchik in some government call center reading from a computer screen who's just decided that, according to 'expert' cost-benefit analyses, I've just passed the point of diminishing returns and it's time to pull the plug.

I'd like to have a little say in how and when I go...or at least my family should.

Get government, the trial bar, and Democratic Socialists the hell out of the way and let the private healthcare industry deal directly with individuals nationwide and cater to each and every policy need and income level.

All government ever does is screw up nearly everything it touches.

SoCon| 2.27.10 @ 1:13AM

You're the man, Knuckle Dragger; Bob the 'RINO' who proudly voted for Obonehead and Doofus Biden--not so much.

Bob the 'RINO', what does Palin have to do with Media Matters? You're the one who compared MM favorably to Fox News; forgot so soon?

"You're (?) problem, SoCon, is you drunk (??) too much of the KoolAid..." I think it's obvious who's the 'drunk' one here, Bob the 'RINO'.

Ralph Novy| 2.27.10 @ 1:52PM

Bob:

I guess you'll have to count me in as a "bleeding heart."

I hold that access to adequate health care should be considered a right in our nation/culture/society, not a mere privilege. And I would point out that contracts can be "oppressive" and "unconscionable." "A deal's a deal" doesn't -- and shouldn't -- always govern.

That said, I too am a penny-pinching atheist -- and none too sanguine about giving too much power to EITHER government OR big companies.

Cheers.

Ralph

Bob| 2.27.10 @ 3:51PM

Here's the problem, Ralph... How much are you willing to spend to give everything to everyone? Under all of the nationalized health care plans in other countries, there is some level of rationing more severe than in most of our health care programs. They have decided that rationing is OK if they can extend their program to everyone. But we have all of those uninsured and under-insured citizens. Plus we have the unfunded mandate that doctors and hospitals cannot turn away anyone. I would have no problem with a program like the one in Taiwan, for example. But most people will not give up what they have -- so how do you get there?

ZerObama| 2.28.10 @ 4:33AM

The healthy elderly in the Netherlands are afraid to go to the hospital for tests; they are afraid their doctors will euthanize them without their consent.

Nice future to envision, right? That's our future on socialized medicine--excluding the wealthy and the damned politicians, of course. No thank you.

Ralph Novy| 2.28.10 @ 10:29AM

Bob:

1. You say "Under all of the nationalized health care plans in other countries, there is some level of rationing more severe than in most of our health care programs. " I don't know that that's true. Of course, it depends in part on how you define both "rationing" and "severe," but an awful lot of the rationing/waiting-times horror stories I've heard about the British and Canadian systems have turned out to be either exaggerated or unsubstantiated.

2. The "unfunded mandate" created by hospitals not turning away patients (at least in emergency-room situations) seems to me a BIG reason to bring those people into the paying pool. They'd be paying SOMETHING and wouldn't have to resort to ultra-expensive emergency-room care so much.

3. Find it VERY curious that you express admiration for the Taiwan system (explicitly modeled on American Medicare). Checked it out at Wikipedia and a couple of other sources (notably http://www.globalpost.com/disp.....are-taiwan). Sounds pretty good to ME (2% administrative overhead!). How, exactly, do you see current proposals for an American single-payer system (H.R. 676, for example) as differing? On the details, I think there's plenty of room for discussion and even compromise. BTW... took note of the fact that private health insurance is not illegal in Taiwan -- it's just largely not competitive because of its much higher administrative costs.

Fare thee well.

Ralph

Big Elk| 2.26.10 @ 9:51PM

"media matters", is like "Dawn of the Dead", (apologies to flesh-eating zombies), they are a soros supported anti-American gaggle of whiners and liars. Therefore, they flat out lied, just like their boss; the short and strange looking soros. But, not to worry; soros will die of greed, old age, and inbreed evil soon and then we can all sing the Hallelujah chorus.

Long Ben| 2.27.10 @ 2:57AM

Marriage is an ordinance of The Lord. Therefore
homosexuals should have nothing to do with it.

Bob| 2.27.10 @ 3:52PM

I'm an atheist -- I guess that means I should not be able to marry as well. Right? If you don't believe in "The Lord", your argument goes away.....

ZerObama | 2.28.10 @ 4:34AM

No, it just means your wife was stupid to have made the choice to marry you.