The Lamest Excuse and Your Healthcare
Are there really Representatives out there saying, "We do not have the votes" and using that excuse as a reason not to support reform? If Single Payer needs 4 more votes and a dozen Representatives have no opinion because the votes are not there, what does that mean, exactly?!?!
It sounds like someone in high school not giving an opinion because they don't want to be unpopular. This position lacks any principles. The issue is whether we can improve the health care delivery system, and by that I mean delivering healthcare. I am not concerned with delivering profits to shareholders. The system would be better if the patients were the shareholders and no one BUT shareholders benefitted when income exceeded expenses. The present system is about providing profits with providing healthcare as a necessary evil. The dream of the shareholder is maximized profits. Who cares if anyone feels better. Give the shareholders a bunch of money and they feel better. See! The system works!
"I can't vote for this because the votes are not there" should be translated into "I am not voting for that." It is really all that needs to be said.
After I stepped up to do some work around here, I heard my mother's voice, from decades ago when I was in grade school, maybe third grade.
I don't care what the other kids are doing. I care what you are doing."
We need to be better parents to our child-like Senators and Representatives.
June 25, 2009 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Both my Senator, Kay hagan and my Rep, Heath Shuler say they are studying the issue and have no opinion or stand yet on the issue of a public option for health care. Both have accpeted a ton of PAC and lobbyist money. I say they have the opinion of not spporting it even in the broadest sense because when I have called their offices they refuse to acknowledge recieving any PAC or lobbyist money from the health care industry. the hell with both of them and I actively worked for their elections. These dogs will not hunt for me come next election!
June 25, 2009 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well . . .
If you're fortunate enough to have health insurance or are looking forward to being covered, maybe you could tell Kay and Heath there in North Carolina that you're not looking forward to paying a 103% increase on coverage.
See that link that goes to my blog here at the Cafe to view what the numbers show for the state that you reside in. The interactive graph there will also show for each state what the percentage of personal income was paid for insurance coverage for 2006 and the projection of what the percentage will be in 2016 if nothing is done over reform.
~OGD~
June 25, 2009 8:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
The answer to "We don't have the votes" is "Then go get the votes and nothing else you do matters to me until you've got the votes. If don't get the votes, I will hold YOU accountable in the next election.
June 25, 2009 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perzactly!!!
June 26, 2009 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Another thing we have to watch out for on votes is the big con game they do when they want to kill something like public option. They've done it so often on stuff like FISA and war funding etc. They set it up so just a few safe Senators or Congressmen vote against what people want and then the others have it both ways going back home to claim that they voted for the bill but "we didn't have the votes" when they had no intention of ever voting for the bill anyway even if the votes magically appear.
They need to know that we are holding them ALL accountable. "We don't have the votes" is no excuse. Buy them, steal them, trade pork for them, get them. Don't come home till you've got them.
June 25, 2009 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree we need to have more 'representative' representation in WA
June 25, 2009 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
In DC too.
June 26, 2009 8:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks... I meant DC ultimately:)
June 26, 2009 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
John Kerry, from whom I get weekly requests for donations (after all these years -- I live in VA, so this is from 2004!) is asking for TRIGGERS THAT GO INTO PLACE IF THE INSURANCE COMPANIES DON'T TOW THE LINE IN 10 YEARS!!!!!!!!!!????????????
The only Trigger I want someone who thinks this way to come into contact with is Roy Rogers' horse, and I want THAT trigger to kick his ass!
June 25, 2009 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
The dream of the shareholder
Goddamn I get so mad.
It is all a lie anyway. The Management as far as the corporation, cares only about Management.
ha
June 25, 2009 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
We could have each said we don't really have the votes to elect Obama, early on in Obama's presidential campaign.
But we didn't.
Remember how strong the democratic party seemed last August in Denver?
Aren't we just asking them to be as decisive for us now as we were for them on election day?
June 25, 2009 9:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not sure I agree. As I said on other recent posts, most people at a high level are in favor of a government option but when it gets down to the details, people are more skeptical.
Are people in favor of a government option that provides insurance to the uninsured? Of course. It's hard not to be if you're human.
But there's lots of other touchpoints where Americans are still nervous and that's why it's so hard to pass something.
Because 77% of Americans are either very or somewhat satisfied with the current quality of the healthcare they get today. 63% believe that the quality of their healthcare will get worse. 68% are concerned that the public option will restrict access to treatment. 53% are worried about being forced to switch doctors. And only 28% feel that the plan will have a positive impact on the economy. Only 50% feel that the government will do a better job in providing health coverage. And only 4 in 10 would be willing to pay as much as $500 more per year to make sure that we have universal coverage (well it's going to cost more than that).
These polling results are not surprising. They reflect the overall mood of the American public, not just some "right wing" or a politician's agenda. People are in favor of idealistic goals, but when you get into the fine print, it's not as good as it originally sounded. People just aren't that excited for Congress' healthcare plan. And that's why it's taking longer for Obama to get a bill passed. Because he wants it to satisfy the American public, and not just Congress.
June 25, 2009 11:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where did you get your number, MCB? What kind of sample were they to get 77% so happy?
About the next two questions 63% believe...but do not know. 68% are concerned, but they do not know either. 53% are worried, but nothing has happened to justify their worry, and only 28% feel it will have a positive impact on the economy. I'm curious what percentage felt it would have a negative impact, because the previous 3 questions were negative. Was the mode neutral toward the economy or, did not know?
50% felt the government would do a better job, so why is that original 77% figure at the top mean anything? It seems that of those who were happy, only 27% do not think the government could do it better, but 50% think the government could do it better, so are you suggesting they do not want it any better?
Oh, and 4 in 10 would pay $500 more a year...more then what? And who really knows this answer anyway as we do not have a determined plan.
Yes, the polls indicates an agenda as does your comment, ar at least an opinion. But it's not not an opinion based on much more then belliefs, worries and concerns, probably the result of the static broadcast by the health care industry.
June 26, 2009 3:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good Luck ... GZ . . .
Unlocking MCB's pretzels is a full time job.
Onward and downward. Down the thread that is.
~OGD~
June 26, 2009 6:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is amazing how people will work so hard to maintain a system that exists to take their money and deny them treatment. The sad truth is that the insured families of the country are not in any reliable sense insured.
June 26, 2009 10:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
The only explanation I have for people NOT supporting change is that they are blinded by partisanship, having only an Anti-Obama agenda because he's not fromthe GOP, or they are simply uninformed, or ill-informed, which seems to be going around quite a bit, disinformation, that is.
June 26, 2009 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Where did I get my number? What "number" are you referring to? I am very confused by that question. I am simply quoting the NYTimes poll results, so not sure what you mean.
What kind of sample were they? I'm sure it was a random sample in order to make the results fair. But I didn't conduct the poll. You should go to the NY Times website and take a look at the fine print.
You make distinction between "believing" and "knowing". Of course they don't "know" because the changes haven't happened yet. You can't be certain about a future event. If I asked you if the Yankees are going to beat the Mets this weekend, a normal person would say "I believe the Yankees will win" and not "I know the Yankees will win". But just because it's "believe" and not "know" doesn't mean the person doesn't have a well thought out opinion.
As far as costs, you ask "more than what". I think it's fair to assume the "what" is what they are paying today. So it's a pretty simple question - would you be supportive of paying an extra $500 more than what you pay today to ensure universal coverage?
You're also confusing "doing it better" with the government providing an option to everybody. Those are two different points.
There's plenty of things that can make people worried about change. And these are very valid things to be worried about. What else can an opinion be based on other than beliefs, worries, concerns and of course comparing our current system to other countries. It's not accurate to say "nothing has happened to justify their worry". We all have friends who live in other countries and can ask them about their healthcare experiences and form an opinion about whether we'd prefer that over what we have today.
Sorry if I didn't answer every one of your questions but you had a lot of questions in your post.
June 26, 2009 7:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
But all those numbers are totally without context. There is nothing, anywhere, that says everyone would have to pay $500 more than they pay today to get universal coverage. If 77% are actually happy with their current coverage it is because they are idiots. Or they haven't had to really use it for anything that matters.
That is more smoke and mirrors. The actual problem is very simple as is the solution. Unless we take the profit motive out of health insurance - thorough a public plan or a total change in how the industry is regulated, preferably bothy - or else the entire system implodes in about a decade. Period. Those are the facts.
More facts? We pay more than every other industrialized nation in the world for vastly inferior results. The for-health care system only worked while the main thing it provided was care. Now it is insurance companies as the gate keepers, scraping off their pound of flesh before it goes toward care. It is a ridiculous system on many levels and should be offensive to anyone with a brain.
I agree that the government does many things poorly, but this actually is the one thing they could do well because of the economies of scale of bringing 320 million people together under one insurance collective. Insurance works best with more people involved. Not to mention the fact that we have decades of statistics and yearly double-digit increases in health insurance costs to prove that the private sector cannot perform this service for society.
I am baffled as to why you hold the "government" accountable but rarely individual representatives of the system. You venerate the private sector, yet don't hold them equally accountable for piss-poor performance. I am about done with the lot of them and think they should mostly be replaced with innovative thinkers who won't consider the status quo as the finish line rather than just the beginning. We need to raise the bar or this shit is just going to keep getting worse.
It is long past time the American citizen pulled their heads out of their asses and demanded more from everyone in a position of leadership - from Wall Street to Capital Hill.
June 26, 2009 8:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
77% are idiots? ok, whatever you say.
June 26, 2009 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't take it out of context. Without knowing if the 77% have faced the same challenges as the 23% who are getting screwed their view of the subject is skewed.
June 26, 2009 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
MCB, you make me laugh. You end your comment complaining about so many questions, yet each was posed in response to the "points" you thought you had made in your previous comment to which I was responding. Essentially, you provoked more questions then answers.
Thanks for referencing the NYTimes. Those are the numbers, those pesky percentages, that I was referenceing. And also thank you for making my point and agreeing, those polled do not "know", and that's the bottom line. It's a guessing game composed of a lot of people who do not know and probably do not get into any depth on these matters. So they are subject to whatever spin emerges. Do I trust the NYTimes? Not in this care, I don't. These are rigged questions and I do not find them to be truly reflective of the present situation.
wvbiker above-references an interview with Jay Rockefeller, who, ironically, was originally from New York.
June 26, 2009 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
On another note . . .
Why doesn't Josh get in contact with Wendell Potter whose testimony before the Senate Commerce Committee is posted at my TPM Cafe blog here?
Maybe Mr. Potter would be interested in doing a special for the Cafe.
I'm sure there are a few deniers and disbelievers 'round here who would probably love to go toe to toe with someone of Mr. Potter's experience in the trenches of the health insurance industry.
~OGD~
June 26, 2009 6:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed.
June 26, 2009 7:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
I guess what it takes is to have Senators and Congressmen who have so much damn money that they cannot be bought, such as my own Senator Jay Rockefeller:
http://sundaygazettemail.com/News/200906250731
So, let's just go ahead and instead of the billions for more Iraq War to the industrial military complex, we just shoot it all straight into Capitol Hill bank accounts.
Problem solved.
June 26, 2009 9:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't it funny that a Rockefeller has sense enough to know if we develop a decent healthcare system everyone will benefit overall? It's kind of like Franklin D. Roosevelt, one of the wealthiest people's of his time, putting together Alphabet Soup, because he knew if the foundaton was solid the building could be built even higher, and it was.
June 26, 2009 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
(Oops, meant to add to my comment and clicked on submit.}
Jay Rockefeller states,
Now, if we agree, and I know you love to argue every point, but if we agree the US has a population of 320 million people, and we agree to accept the Senator's figures, then 70 million are either uninsured or underinsured. That's nearly 22% in trouble regarding their healthcare. This does comport nicely with the NYTimes poll, leaving 78% happy, but looking at this other side of the coin, with 22% in trouble. That's the figure that is totally unacceptable.
There is a definition of insanity, to repeat the same behavior and expect a different result. I do not care how we twist private insurance and declare it reform. If healthcare is provided by an entity whose primary purpose is profit, then we can expect the same pathethic provision of services. 22% lacking the ability to seek medical attention is far too masny. Maybe you could just admit you are happy with that.
As for the $500 more, it's a fantasy figure, again just projections provided by whom? The NY Times did not ask the right questions nor did they provide the figures that matter, IMHO. 22% matter.
Oh, and as for the people from other countries, my cousin lived in Toronto for decades. Never had any problem with how healthcare was provided, you know, provided to ensure her good health, not good profits for the far removed shareholders. Umm, she was a shareholder.
June 26, 2009 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dang it! This last comment was meant for MCB! Sorry wvbiker, obviously I really appreciaste your contribution to this post. And for that matter, I appreciate MCB as well, because he allows me the opportunity to debunk so much fluff.
June 26, 2009 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not only that, but the 78% simply don't know enough to be pissed. They assume their health care is good because they haven't had to rely on it for a crisis.
I wonder how many of that figure would answer the same way with a different set of questions. Such as: If you suffered a major illness today are you confident your insurance plan would cover all your needs? Bet that number changes dramatically. Show those same people a documentary about what the 22% is facing and I bet that number changes even further.
I am so sick of debating these things in a vacuum of information independent of the actual data we have collected for the last twenty years. It is clear that the system is broken for millions of people, so asking the ones that don't use it for their opinion seems to be a waste of time.
June 26, 2009 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yup! Let's poll the ignorant and see how well the "news bending" has worked. [Referencing miguelito's post of today here].
June 26, 2009 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
So all the people polled are idiots? I think the government needs to represent the majority, and I'm sorry if you're not in it.
That 22% that you reference - how many people in that category actual could get health insurance but choose not to?
PS - if Canada is so great, why is our neighbor to the North seeing a rise in private health care options?
June 26, 2009 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
The 22%?
Maybe they are opposed to paying shareholders when they get sick?
Maybe they just want healthcare?
They will all want healthcare when they get sick! They can pay for it now, or we will pay for it later.
June 26, 2009 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
How many of the 22% could afford healthcare today but just choose not to sign up for it?
June 26, 2009 9:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uh . . .
One hundred fifty-one (151) people.
~OGD~
June 27, 2009 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great circle, Bill. We're right where we started. Why did they make that choice?
June 27, 2009 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
When I first graduated from college I didn't make a lot of money. I had a hard time paying my rent and I decided to skip health insurance. I felt like I was in good health and I had a lot of other basic living expenses that seemed to take priority.
June 27, 2009 9:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lucky you did not get hurt. If you had you would have been screwed and begging for mercy. Better to have everyone covered so that college students are not losing their future or going int bankruptcy because of some unfortunate circumstance that is no one's fault. I'm willing to pay for that college student, if he gets injured or sick.
June 28, 2009 3:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's fine, but my point is that there could be a large number of your 22% that do it voluntarily. And unlike me, there are probably people who could afford it but just choose not to do it because they don't think they need it. Is that a good thing? Maybe/maybe not. But I just don't think you can say that your 22% "comports nicely" with the poll results
You're implying that our system is so screwed up because it leaves 22% uninsured. It appears that neither one of us knows how much of that 22% chooses to be uninsured. (Or if you know then you're just not telling me for some reason).
Does our system have faults? Yes, and big ones. But you're overstating how bad it is if you include in your uninsured bucket people who could afford it buy choose not to pay for it.
June 28, 2009 6:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
I would like to have everyone in the insurance pool, and make it mandatory. If the uninsured get hurt, it costs us all anyway. We should have as minimal national insurance and then people cna buy fluff beyond that if they like. But everyone should be in the pool.
June 29, 2009 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're entitled to that opinion
June 29, 2009 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe this is code to the Lobbyists who support Healthcare Reform that there are those in Congress who want more money from them!
As disgusted with all the shenanigans that are going on in DC, I do think the legislators are hoping that we all just quit watching them, as they really don't like being under the microscope.
Fortunately, there is now sufficient information available to hold each legislator accountable, to see who is buying their vote/ contributing to their election campaign. That is THE change that they really don't like!
Yeah, Transparency SUCKS when it uncovers all the nasty bad habits of our elected officials.
June 26, 2009 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe we need to create a huge Fund that collects money to be distributed to the Senators and Representatives who vote for Single-Payer, a PAC of our own. We do not want several of them, just one great big huge Fund from the people. A great big shiny pile of money will obviously get their attention. Then, next election, we vote those bums out who needed to be paid extra to do their job!!! We already know who they are. And as Bluebell above-notes in the second comment, there are those who will change their position just before the actual vote once the ones who will defeat the bill are identified. So let's not use those numbers. The issue is clear, either we give health to everyone, or we continue to have private companies cherry-picking healthy people who do not need healthcare forwarding their money to an orgaization that will dump them once they actually need heatlhcare for something serious.
June 26, 2009 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink