Forget death panels. If Republicans pass this bill, they’re the death party.Will DEATH!!!! work as a political message?
The Republicans famously, successfully used "death" to reframe political issues: death tax, death panels. But those were more precise issues that really had to do with death. "Death tax" was a reframing of "estate tax," and "death panels" had to do with end-of-life medical decisionmaking.
"Death party" asks us to believe the Republican Party is happy to let us die.
I would think that crudely shouting DEATH!!!! would cause many people to turn away from the whole discussion. And for many others — especially people facing life-threatening conditions or with family members who are dying or have died — the harping on death causes pain and anxiety.
Is this the right way to try to talk to people?
Posts
234 comments:
1 – 200 of 234 Newer› Newest»It's my party, and I'll die if I want to.
Death, where is thy sting-a-ling-a-ling.
next thing you know, the Dems will make a commercial showing the Reps pushing a granny off a cliff; to her Death!!!
Why would anyone want to know what Hillary thinks about talking to people ?
Don't nominate anybody named Tod or Mort.
It's a winning message for the party that loves abortion, euthanasia, eugenics, and the ultimate shrinking of the human population.
The party of AGW should be thanking the Republicans for eliminating so many carbon dioxide emitters and consumers.
Vince Foster was unavailable for comment.
Ahh, Hillary Clinton, the political gift that keeps on giving.
Now that the Russian-Trump "collusion" lie has been debunked as her primary excuse for LOSING, she has turned to a substantive issue: what to do about Healthcare?
Is she the right messenger and does she have the right political platform to engage in this issue?
Well, after McGovern, Carter, Mondale, Dukakis lost, they pretty much just faded away. Al Gore too, except for global warming hysteria that earned him tens of millions.
Why can't Hillary simply follow suit of these prior losers and just exit the stage?
In other words, the Dems ask, how can we start to miss you, if you're STILL HERE?
Yes, Hillary please keep tweeting,
This started with Alan Grayson in 2009 . . . "Republicans want you to die Qquickly"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPpQ2MNaSDo
The Democrats clearly have some sort of committee that defines its messaging (and use of curse words!), because all at once over and over again, senior Democrats start using the same message like marionettes. It would be a great story to profile its members and recount a history of its internal debates over messaging.
As for 'death' being the key word, it's hard to imagine how you get much bleaker than that. I look out my window, and I see the sun and hear the birds singing. After using the word 'death,' where do they go from there?
no it's not the right way to talk to people. Hillary, please, please, please go away
The inherent evils of socialism are on full display these days. A very flawed, economically unsustainable law that is only 8 years old might be changed due to the will of the people thinking it's a bad idea and the opposition claims that millions of people will die if that happens.
Just like the "Nazis/Russians" fear mongering, this gives the justifications for the socialists to threaten, attack and kill members of the GOP, since the stakes are so high. They've been doing this since the election, being whipped into a frenzy with this kind of fearing mongering hatred and vilification being spewed by the leadership of the Democrat Party.
I'm not sure whose thought it was originally but Barney Frank got credit for publicizing the idea that "Republicans think that life begins at conception and ends at birth." In other words, if you were really pro-life, you had to support any government program that purported to make life better.
Many, many people believe this. It is one reason that for all their talk of smaller government, Republicans in power rarely ever end a program.
Maybe it's because I live in Massachusetts but the idea that Democrats are the real pro-life party and that Republicans are objectively pro-death is one that I find is common--if rarely stated so baldly.
"Is this the right way to try to talk to people?"
Is Hillary the right person to create D messaging?
SGT Ted said...
changed due to the will of the people thinking it's a bad idea
Currently the ACA has majority support and much better support than the AHCA.
Is Hillary! a part of the "Resistance" or that which is to be resisted?
This is the centennial year for the Russian Revolution or the Bolshevik Coup.
Does the Democratic Party plan any sort of celebration or other memorial event?
Why does the left want to overturn the elected government of the United States?
Says the leader of the party of killing babies....
It is odd to think that she came this close to being POTUS. She has not the slightest idea of how to talk normally. It is all talking points with her
Bay Area Guy, same goes for Obama.
Whollary?
Death, always death. To this day we're still hearing about the scary DEATH! panels. Scare tactics used on both sides... scary.
Psst! Hey there. Can you keep a secret? Don't tell the libtards, but you don't actually need insurance to make an appointment with, and see a doctor. Nor to get an prescription filled at the pharmacy.
Yea, I know, the dumb fucks have convinced themselves that health insurance = health care, but let's leave the "reality-based" community to their ignorance.
We had the "polls" called elections that put the GOP into power in order to repeal the ACA. Far more important than opinion polls from firms that got the election result so wrong, don't you think?
Michael, we "libtards"of a certain stripe would prefer to get insurance companies out of our health care altogether. Trumptards don't remember when Trump spoke approvingly toward government health care.
And unaddressed by citing bullshit opinion polls about the ACA is the fact that American Socialists and their elected leadership think it's OK to threaten, attack and kill their opponents when their policies and politicians are opposed and/or defeated.
"Death!!!" fits well with "Democracy Dies in Darkness"
Time will tell if it's a winner
Well, if Hillary says R's are the party of death, and want to kill Americans, I guess shooting R's is justified.
Actually that should be "the Russian Revolution and the Bolshevik Coup."
The Revolution just sort of happened while all the leading Bolsheviks were out of the country or exiled in Siberia, so they had to scurry home and try to take over, which they managed to do for lack of competent leadership in any other political faction in Russia at the time.
The Soviet Union was not unevitable.
Yuval Levin said...
The health-care bill now before the Senate has been shaped by a number of lessons .. but mostly it is a function of something they have learned about themselves: After seven years of saying they want to repeal and replace Obamacare, congressional Republicans have been forced to confront the fact that many of them, perhaps most, actually don’t quite want to do that.
The president has been an additional unpredictable political constraint—as the more coherent of his musings on health care have all suggested he is not comfortable with repealing and replacing the law, or at least is unfamiliar with the tradeoffs involved and unhappy when he learns about them. This probably had some effect on congressional Republican attitudes, at least early on. But another thing Republicans have learned in these six months is that Donald Trump is an exceptionally weak president, probably the weakest of their lifetimes, and he is likely to accept whatever they do. He’ll celebrate it, sitting himself front and center while they stand around him awkwardly. He’ll praise it wildly and inaccurately. And he’ll sign it—even if pretty soon thereafter, in the wake of bad press, he tries to distance himself from it on Twitter and calls them names.
When you've lost Inga...
The Revolution just sort of happened while all the leading Bolsheviks were out of the country or exiled in Siberia
The Germans contrived to send Lenin from Switzerland to St Petersburg to get the Bolshevik ball rolling.
It should not come as a surprise that H>illary has a tin ear.
August 14, 2009
"If it was completely wrong for Sarah Palin to say "death panels," why did the Senate scuttle the provision she was talking about?
Why didn't the congressional Democrats defend their own bill? If it was so terribly wrong to say "death panels" — and what indignation was expressed!— then why wasn't it easy to crush stupid, crazy Sarah for what she so outrageously said? By backing down and removing the language she leveraged, they not only seem to admit she had a point, they sacrifice credibility that they need to promote what's left of the bill."
Pop quiz, who wrote this?
Such indignation is expressed here toward Hillary Clinton for her tweet using the word "death"! Outrageous!
I can see HRC hasn't lost her touch as a brilliant political strategist!
"This started with Alan Grayson in 2009 . . . "Republicans want you to die Quickly""
While Democrats would prefer you die slowly and painfully of obesity while living in public housing.
“THIS MOTHERFUCKER (Scalise), LIKE HIS WHOLE JOB IS TO GET PEOPLE, CONVINCE REPUBLICANS TO FUCKING KICK PEOPLE OFF FUCKING HEALTH CARE. I HATE THIS MOTHERFUCKER. I’M FUCKING GLAD HE GOT SHOT. I’M GLAD HE GOT SHOT.” “I WISH HE WAS FUCKING DEAD.”
Hillary sounds like a moderate Democrat.
rhhardin,
just look at my name. No way I could stand for any electoral office.
"When you've lost Inga..."
I've never been a proponent of Obamacare, for profit companies have no business running the nation's healthcare, supplemental plans are your own business. I wanted a Public Option from the beginning. I didn't vote for Obama in 2012 because of it.
I don't think anyone is indignant over Hillary's using the word "death". Personally, I'm laughing so hard I can barely type.
Now that the monopoly party California Dems have dropped their single-payer bill, I guess they too are the party of death.
It's death all the way up, all the way down!
Hillary after too many G&T's says to Huma, "I think I'll tweet that the Republicans are the death party."
Huma likewise a bit sloshed (even though she's a Muslim), "great idea."
Don't. Change. Anything.
Hillary 2020!
https://althouse.blogspot.com/2009/08/if-it-was-completely-wrong-for-sarah.html
"When a big bill is dumped on us, we are challenged to read and understand the text. Usually we don't, but the text is there, and there's nothing scurrilous about trying to read it, calling attention to worrisome language, and putting our arguments in vivid words.".
Maybe Clinton was just using "vivid words".
A political party with 60 million dead babies under their belt--like the Democrats--retains permanent possession of the Death Party crown.
Why don't the conservatives simply show all the cases where govt involvement increases costs of the goods, not lowers them? Govt backed student loans, ACA, non market based min wage, etc. They could do a much better job of pushing back on this scare tactic. If the goods cost less, there is better access for all and longer higher quality lives resulting.
60 million is a low-ball estimate, of course.
I wonder how many Tweets it would take to send Psalm 22.
AReasonableMan said...
Yuval Levin said...
A reasonable man might provide a ink-lay.
(FF to 4:47 - NSFW - language warning)
Cake please.
Michael, we "libtards"of a certain stripe would prefer to get insurance companies out of our health care altogether.
Which you were free to do prior to Obamacare - no one forced you to include insurance companies in your health care. I know this because for many years I went without any health insurance. It didn't stop me from seeing my general practitioner, nor from getting prescriptions filled at the pharmacy. I was free to choose to be free of insurance companies in my health care.
But Obamacare mandates that you purchase an insurance policy from - wait for it - an insurance company.
https://althouse.blogspot.com/2011/04/beware-of-death-unions.html
"Heh. This is like all that endless Democratic Party talk about how the Republicans are doing a better job of "framing" the issues — calling the estate tax the "death tax" and so on. "Death panels." Maybe something with "death"? That seems to work well for Republicans"
We all use the scare tactic of DEATH! when it serves us.
"Why don't the conservatives simply show all the cases where govt involvement increases costs of the goods, not lowers them? Govt backed student loans, ACA, non market based min wage, etc. They could do a much better job of pushing back on this scare tactic. If the goods cost less, there is better access for all and longer higher quality lives resulting."
They do this a lot and it is always answered by the Media/Democrat Party Complex with claims of incipient death, racism, slavery and calamity if the GOP tries to alter failed or failing Democrat policies.
The GOP correctly predicted what would happen to premiums and coverage under the ACA. You don't hear about that from the DNC-Media complex, do you?
The media has been ignoring the part where premiums and deductibles have shot up to unaffordable levels under the mandates of the ACA, contrary to specific promises made by Democrats, unless they can lay the blame on insurance companies for these direct, predicted results of the law.
Not sure that screaming about death is that bad of a branding, talking point, meme. Their theory is that dumping Obamacare will result in lowering the number of people covered by healthcare insurance. And, thus, the number having adequate healthcare. Never mind that most of the expansion was via Medicaid, which ultimately meant pushing those who were working out in favor of those who couldn't, or wouldn't. But it also pushed the healthy out in favor of the unhealthy, who need it more. Morally, I oppose the first (because I believe that those working should have priority), but not sure about the second. In any case, the goal is probably not to change the debate, as much as to energize their voting base, which were the primary beneficiaries of the Medicaid expansion. Keep that in mind - Medicaid recipients tend to vote Democrat, when they vote, which isn't as often, comparatively. They don't have to deal with the Healthcare Exchange, soaring premiums, disappearing insurance carriers, etc. They have a new free benefit, and the best way to scare this ultra low information demographic is to tell them that they will lose it and die, if the Republicans get their way. They aren't really trying to convince the better informed middle class, but rather the average Medicaid recipient.
If Trump is assassinated by some Leftist radicalized by the Democrats, you can kiss Chelsea Clinton, Barak Obama, Bernie Sanders and Terry McCaulif goodbye.
And don't bother nominating a presidential candidate for 2020.
Please let Hillary run again, please let Hillary run again. Oh please, please please please. Oh please let her surrogates accuse members of the left of misogyny for not wanting her to run again. Oh please please please. I thought she was going away, but she keeps putting herself out there. Please, please, please, please someone put it in her brain she can run and win this time.
Just another dog whistle telling Democrats to go kill Republicans.
Sorry Vault Dweller, she won't be running again.
Sorry Vault Dweller, she won't be running again.
Who's going to stop her ? Estes Kefauver once said that the only cure for presidential ambition is embalming fluid.
Inga, it's not working. So keep it up by all means, if it's worth your soul to double down on failure.
Is this the right way to try to talk to people?
Nope. But that hasn't stopped the Democrats from doing since the Goldwater Daisy ad.
,tweeting is just one of the activities where Hillary loses to The Donalld. Poor old girl just can't compete, bless her heart.
How many people and how many emails did it take to craft that tweet? (We learned from the Podesta emails that her tweets were designed by committee, even the "-H" ones.)
I expect it won't be long before the tweet is turned into a meme involving goths or something and it ends up boosting the Republicans' popularity.
BJM said...
(FF to 4:47 - NSFW - language warning)
Cake please.
6/25/17, 9:38 AM
And bring a flag.
Did you send your $12.67 in, so that Jill Stein could start investigating the Ossoff loss?
Part of her myriad of problems is that she is a scold.
I think lefties have given up politics and are doing this just to make themselves feel better.
"A reasonable man might provide a ink-lay."
Yuval Levin usually writes for National Review.
Ah yes, there we are.
"Forget death panels. If Republicans pass this bill, they’re the death party."
Sounds like someone is a bit envious....
Inga, you say that she won't be running. And I think several weeks ago or perhaps a month or so ago, she did definitively state she will not run again. But.. she keeps putting herself out there. I keep seeing her out there commenting on politics. Now maybe she just wants to try to rehabilitate her image for posterity's sake. But also maybe, somewhere in her head fueled by the onslaught of sycophants, she thinks she can run again and win.
http://www.cc.com/video-clips/7nleof/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-ramesh-ponnuru
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Party_of_Death
You can use the Althouse Amazon portal to order Ponnuru's 2006 book "The Party of Death" but we both know you won't ever get past the first chapter, so...
Who knows, Vault Dweller? Who really cares? Not the liberal base, that's for sure. She is allowed to express herself, let her tweet away. Trump and Hillary could get in a tweet war, how entertaining would that be?!
Hillary has a warehouse full of celebratory fireworks and a $1 million+ CGI video of a glass ceiling being broken. The Democrats can't let those go to waste. Hillary 2020.
I thought SMOD (Sweet Meteor Of Death) was the Death Party.
"Inga, it's not working. So keep it up by all means, if it's worth your soul to double down on failure."
Huh? What should I be doubling down on Bad LT? What's not working? What failure do you think I'm promoting? So cryptic.
Who really cares? Not the liberal base, that's for sure.
What does the liberal base have to do with it ? The nomination in 2020, as in 2016, will be decided by a few very rich people in California, New York, and Seattle.
"In fact, Ponnuru has nothing to say at all about the monstrous character assassination, carried out by utterly unscrupulous RTL propagandists, of a decent man who coped humanely and well with a terrible life calamity. Well, not quite nothing: “It cannot be denied that pro-lifers were guilty of some excesses,” Ponnuru murmurs. Some excesses? I would say. Here the author sounds like nothing so much as a Soviet Communist Party apparatchik, circa 1960, offering a grudging admission that Stalin and his cronies might, just once or twice, have been a tad over-zealous in dealing with class enemies." - http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm?frm=3190&sec_id=3190
In addition, Derbyshire's review is worse than 10,000 Undead Hitlers with shape-shifting abilities owning cold fusion and perpetual motion machines because Derbyshire can't help himself but to unwittingly use hyperbole to self-refute his own supposed argument.
I am glad I don't reference his 6,999,999 rate mind more than, such as now, once every couple or few years.
"Please, please, please, please someone put it in her brain she can run and win this time."
Trump is so unpopular according to the polls any democrat could win.
But they are acting like raging suicidal losers who know they don't really have a chance.
Which is the act and which is the truth.
"I wanted a Public Option from the beginning. "
Inga wants to make everyone use the VA.
Health insurance and life insurance are really sickness insurance and death insurance, though nobody likes to say it.
The premium increases on employer plans were enormous, 2010-2013, and are accurately estimated in BLS cost of employment data. These have not since rolled back.
I have posted the graph and data many times.
Note, this phenomenon affected the large majority of employed persons in the US, and this explains much of the poor employment growth of the "recovery" of 2009-2016. This is not controversial.
Nobody seems to care. Actual information, data, seems to be of no value.
Hillary reminds me of an older mom trying to talk cool to her teenagers. She's heard from others how teenagers talk and the things they're interested in, so attempts to bond based on that knowledge.
Only, in Hillary's case, the "teenagers" are normal humans. She's heard how normal people talk and has charts about key words they're interested in so has someone compose a "twitter" using those words.
She's down with the groove, homey, so don't dis her, foshizzle, as the kids like to say.
"We had the 'polls' called elections that put the GOP into power in order to repeal the ACA. Far more important than opinion polls from firms that got the election result so wrong, don't you think?"
No.
There were more ballots cast for Hillary than for Trump, and only Electoral College electors placed Trump in office, (legitimately, as per the Constitution). If you want to characterize every vote cast as a vote for or against ACA, then, indisputably, the people voted for ACA.
I don't assume every cast vote was a vote for or against ACA. I think many people who did vote for Trump--not the majority of voters, I remind you--voted for other reasons...many just because they liked and believed his pretense at being "for the people."
You can't cast Trump's election as being a decisive rejection of ACA "by the people" in favor of something else (or of nothing else). You can't even legitimately say the majority of people preferred Trump over Clinton.
(Me? I didn't vote for either of the major party stinkers.)
I would love to know who Hillary!'s taxidermist is.
"Now that the monopoly party California Dems have dropped their single-payer bill, I guess they too are the party of death."
It wasn't the party, it was one Dem. He'll probably be pretty well shellacked for it when he next runs for reelection.
You can't cast Trump's election as being a decisive rejection of ACA "by the people" in favor of something else (or of nothing else). You can't even legitimately say the majority of people preferred Trump over Clinton.
Yet they gave majorities in Congress to the Republicans.
I would love to know who Hillary!'s taxidermist is.
She's not stuffed but Pickled.
It wasn't the party, it was one Dem. He'll probably be pretty well shellacked for it when he next runs for reelection.
I would not be surprised.
One sane Democrat in California would be endangered as a species
"You can't even legitimately say the majority of people preferred Trump over Clinton."
No, only the majority of citizens.
Robert Cook seems to have missed the shift of more than 1000 elected officials - President, Congress, governors and state legislatures - from the Democrats to the Republicans since 2009.
One wonders how a person so well informed cannot see causation when voters have been quite clear about the reasons for the shift.
Is this the right way to try to talk to people?
No. But I call them Dumbocrats for a reason.
Those of you who thought Hillary Clinton had a lick of political savvy, think again.
I never do this, quote a troll, but this is the exception to the rule. I'm not going to name the troll but you can do a search for the word, "libtard," to discover the troll's name.
Anyway, a troll wrote:
"Michael, we "libtards"of a certain stripe would prefer to get insurance companies out of our health care altogether."
Which is libtard speak for, "I want to get my stuff for free." The troll leaves out the part where it wants the government to run healthcare, as horrifying a prospect as can be imagined. Please see National Health in the UK.
If the libs want to sit down and discuss healthcare rationally I'm all for it as I'm with Trump on wanting a humane system, "...with heart," I think is quoted. This isn't something new, he's been saying this since the beginning that we have to take care of the people who can't take care of themselves. Go back and watch his New Hampshire and Massachusetts rallies on Youtube and listen.
By the way, Hillary had the chance to bring all the magic together in the early 90s when BJ Clinton gave her the charge but she failed. Her first national failure.
How about a recasting of Sunset Boulevard with Hillary as Norma Desmond and Huma as the faithful servant ? "I AM big. It's the People who got small."
>>The nomination in 2020, as in 2016, will be decided by a few very rich people in California, New York, and Seattle.
The nomination in 2020, as in 2016, will be decided by a CNN, CBS, the NYT, and a few other legacy media that only Democrats pay attention to.
The rest of us have seen through their game and if they say 2+2=4, we want them to show us the video.
"I never do this, quote a troll, but this is the exception to the rule. I'm not going to name the troll but you can do a search for the word, "libtard," to discover the troll's name.
Anyway, a troll wrote:...."
Blogger Michael The Magnificent said...
Psst! Hey there. Can you keep a secret? Don't tell the libtards, but you don't actually need insurance to make an appointment with, and see a doctor."
6/25/17, 8:56 AM
---------------------------
Affordable may cost less than free, and will mitigate the recurring catastrophic anthropogenic economic resets forced by liberal leverage.
"Which is libtard speak for, "I want to get my stuff for free." The troll leaves out the part where it wants the government to run healthcare, as horrifying a prospect as can be imagined. Please see National Health in the UK."
Please see France, Germany, Italy, Canada, Australia, the Netherlands, Sweden, Singapore, etc. etc. etc.
Dumbass.
Democrats are so Pro-Choice from conception to perpetual smoothing functions to [class] diversity to Planned Parenthood to early retirement to elective wars and catastrophic anthropogenic immigration reform.
Please see France, Germany, Italy, Canada, Australia, the Netherlands, Sweden, Singapore, etc. etc. etc.
Dumbass.
Which all have different systems of healthcare. But I won't call you that, Inga.
I wonder if people who are dying or dealing with dying spouse/relative are even psychologically inclined to remember things like voting. So this whole death-narrative is more effective on healthy people?
Inga you dummy most of those countries have single-payer, not govt-run hospitals.
"Which all have different systems of healthcare. But I won't call you that, Inga".
Well thanks for that Michael K and you didn't use the pejorative "libtard" either! Good for you, we are progressing, that's good. Yes indeed, all those countries do have different systems ... from ours. And those systems work well in providing healthcare for their populations.
Inga the libtard can't accept that the USA is a capitalist country driven by the profit motive. We will NEVER EVER give it up! Profit, uber alles.
" you dummy most of those countries have single-payer, not govt-run hospitals"
Who said they did? And do you ever know what single payer is? Moby.
"One wonders how a person so well informed cannot see causation when voters have been quite clear about the reasons for the shift."
Have they? Where? What is the reason voters have shifted?
Hillary has never ever known the right way to talk to people. That's why it's astonishing she went as far as she did in politics! - twice!
And Moby Alex, not all those countries are true single payer systems. Don't opine unless you know the facts.
"And those systems work well in providing healthcare for their populations."
The NHS is a disgrace.
France has an excellent system but it uses free market so Democrats would not touch it.
Germany uses sickness funds based on employer (like we do) plus city or village of residence.
Canada tried single payer but now uses that only for those who don;t want to pay for private care. They ration specialist care but GP is pretty free.
Netherlands uses severe rationing. If you have COPD and go to an ER with respiratory failure, you are given a lethal injection of morphine, No consent, no discussion, just death.
Sweden had "The Seven Crowns Reform" in 1970.
That results, because of the confiscatory income taxes, with most physicians taking the last three months of the year off. Try to see a doctor in November or December.
I have studied this, Inga. You have not.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2017/03/26/its-surprising-how-few-countries-have-national-single-payer-health-care-systems/#5535403b5c5a
"It's Surprising How Few Countries Have National, Single Payer, Health Care Systems
There are indeed national health care systems out there--but they tend not to be single payer. And there are single payer systems out there, or close enough at least--but they tend not to be national. Which is something that we really ought to be thinking about, no?
A report in 2014 by the Commonwealth Fund, a private foundation specializing in health care research, ranked the United States third in the world in access to specialists. That’s a great achievement. But the Netherlands and Switzerland did better. When it comes to nonemergency and elective surgery, patients in several countries, including the Netherlands, Germany and Switzerland, all of which have universal, government-guided health care systems, have faster access than the United States.
Note the very careful indeed wording there. Universal government guided health care--for those systems are not single payer. Holland, Germany and Switzerland all have mandatory insurance systems from private sector insurance companies. Germany has some 130 of them for example."
"Again, please note I'm not trying to talk about whatever the US should or should not do. I'm making an observation about the economics of systems which seem to work in other places. The exemplars we're all asked to look at are not national, universal and single payer. They tend to be either almost hyper-local in their financing if they're single payer or if they're national then they use insurance companies--they're multi-payer. My assumption would be that both single payer and national is just too inefficient. There's neither local pride nor profit lust keeping the system efficient.
There are indeed national and single payer systems out there, most notably the National Health Service in Britain. That's very fair, very equitable, but performs horribly on "mortality amenable to health care" which is otherwise known as curing people of what ails them. That's not a recommendation."
"Which all have different systems of healthcare."
Perhaps that was Inga's point. There are any number of ways to implement single payer healthcare, and no one extant system must stand as the model for what the USA might create if it ever decided to go that way. If there's something about the UK's system (and any other system) that is unwieldy or produces poor outcomes, do it differently or better here. If there's something in France's system (and any others) that works well, use those aspects of those systems here.
What is apparent is that these systems produce outcomes better than the USA's for lower cost and with accessibility for all.
http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/single-payer-healthcare-pluses-minuses-means-201606279835
"A way forward
If the major barrier to implementing single payer healthcare in the U.S. is a matter of politics, the pathway forward will require mobilizing public support. A recent poll suggests 58% of Americans support Medicare-for-all. Interestingly, whereas a majority of physicians support transitioning to single payer, they are less likely to believe their colleagues share this opinion. This raises an interesting question of whether the “conventional wisdom” that it is too difficult to reorganize the healthcare insurance system overshadows actual public opinion.
Multiple strategies to continue to push for Medicare-for-all have been proposed. This includes individual states implementing a single payer system as a demonstration of feasibility, which failed before implementation in Vermont but will be on Colorado’s 2016 ballot. An alternative proposes implementing a single payer system on a federal level by lowering the Medicare qualifying age every few years. Through education of the general population about the merits of single payer, perhaps eventually the public will vote politicians into office willing to overcome Medicare-for-all’s political barriers."
"Hillary has never ever known the right way to talk to people. That's why it's astonishing she went as far as she did in politics! - twice!"
Only because of her association with her husband, who people like. He's a fraud, but he's a charming, charismatic fraud. Hillary has negative charisma.
I said...
"Which all have different systems of healthcare."
Robert Cook said...
"Perhaps that was Inga's point."
Precisely.
The republicans are the party of death and the democrats the party of taxes.
@rhhardin:
Yes. We must accept that being burdened with the Republicans and the Democrats is our inevitable fate.
"Perhaps that was Inga's point. There are any number of ways to implement single payer healthcare,"
They are NOT single payer. That was MY point.
It always amuses me to see the Socialists opining on things they know nothing about.
"If the major barrier to implementing single payer healthcare in the U.S. is a matter of politics,"
No, it is economics.
Harvard is the last place to expect good information on health care reform.
Those things are always written by academics who think they will be in charge and will not have to live with an inferior system.
None of them have ever been in private practice. Now, we have more and more physicians on salary and who will therefore have no idea of how a business runs. VA, here we come.
A collapsing economic system also leads to increased citizen death.
Do the lefties know what happens to the sick and poor (and middle class too!) when the economy starts to collapse? Are they working out a plan for after we run out of money?
Trump Confirms He Called House Repeal Bill ‘Mean,’ Claims Obama Copied Him
So, a Democrat supporter and Bernie volunteer attempts to instigate a coup by killing off a lot of the majority party. Dems see no reason to tone down their rhetoric that their non-insane follower used to justify murdering opponents.
Michael K,
I DIDN'T say they WERE all single payer. They are different from each other and different from our system. THAT was my point.
ARM,
Jeez, one just has to laugh...
"death panels had to do with end of life decision making". There was some controversy about the ACA plan to reimburse doctors for discussing end of life options. (Pro-life people believed that patients would take this as pressure to accept assisted suicide, or something.)
I always thought that "death panel" was a reference to the independent advisory panel mechanism to control Medicare costs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_Payment_Advisory_Board This is a panel that is supposed to make binding recommendations on how to cut Medicare costs if those costs exceed some pre-determined level. Congress can only countermand the recommendations through a supermajority vote. It looks like the trigger levels will be met in the next year or two requiring IPA board action. But get t his: no members to the board have been named. So I expect to hear a lot more about this board over the next year or so.
Yes, there will be such IPA boards under a TrumpCare, make no mistake about it. As for the other death panel nonsense, some confused it with Advanced Directives (which were discussed with elderly or terminal patients whether the practioner was reimbursed or not), which were around long before the ACA.
Also something TrumpCare advocates seem to gloss over, the Medicaid cuts. How will you deal with your elderly parents' nursing home kicking them out after their private pay funds have run out? 42% of Medicaid funds go to the elderly in long term care facilities.
When I take the time to type the word "reasons" and in response I get asked about "the reason" it is a sign of bad faith. I'm not inclined to defend positions I have not taken and it's insulting that other commenters wish to pretend they have some power over me to assume my language and my meaning.
I like that Leftists are, these days, quite direct about what they want. They want government control over the provision of health care. Further, they will want control over all upstream and downstream economic activities related to the provision of health care. I see this situation as a marked improvement over eight years ago when conservatives surmised what Leftists intended and Leftists denied their intentions. It is good that Leftists do not feel a need to lie.
I've written this before and I'll probably write it again until the Stupid Left finally gets it: You know what's (1) the biggest Death Panel of all, and (2) the biggest Death Party of all? (1) The State, and (2) the State Cult. According to R. J. Rummel, who has made the State's homicidal tendencies his life's work, anywhere from 150,000,0000 to 300,000,000 million slain by Big Brother just in the 20th Century.
"I like that Leftists are, these days, quite direct about what they want. They want government control over the provision of health care. Further, they will want control over all upstream and downstream economic activities related to the provision of health care. I see this situation as a marked improvement over eight years ago when conservatives surmised what Leftists intended and Leftists denied their intentions. It is good that Leftists do not feel a need to lie."
I generally agree with you, but it's hard to believe that the gang that gave us "No truth but socialist truth" will ever give up lying. But--re your penultimate sentyence ("I see this situation as a marked improvement . . . ")--I remember when Medicare was passed, and conservatives warned that it could lead to socialized medicine; and "liberals" pooh-poohed such fears as the ravings of the paranoid Right. "Let's pass Medicare, and that'll be the last we use the State to intrude into the health care field." So "me-too" and "moderate" Republicans, always worried about what the Dems thought about them, went along with it. And then later the Left came back with even greater State intrusions into the healh care field. And so it goes. . . .
Who would you go to for advice on your health or the healthcare system? A doctor or a nurse? Oh, I see
Inga said...
one just has to laugh...
It does seem that Trump's sole coherent goal in running for president was to one-up Obama. Apparently there was no depth of thought beyond being more than Obama, with 'more' remaining largely undefined.
"Who would you go to for advice on your health or the healthcare system? A doctor or a nurse? Oh, I see."
Want doctors' advice on healthcare systems? Here you go.
Physicians for a National Health Program
I don't wish to join in an argument between Inga, who knows little, and Michael K, who knows much, about health care. Hang in there, Mike. Trying to educate Inga is an awesome and unrewarding task.
I did want to insert a couple of quotes about the CA single payer, which it turns out was a half-assed bill.
Speaker of the House Rendon ( who pulled the bill) “SB 562 was sent to the Assembly woefully incomplete,” Rendon said in a statement. “Even senators who voted for SB 562 noted there are potentially fatal flaws in the bill, including the fact it does not address many serious issues, such as financing, delivery of care, cost controls (my emphasis), or the realities of needed action by the Trump Administration and voters to make SB 562 a genuine piece of legislation.”
Governor Moonbeam: Gov. Jerry Brown, who had signaled wariness about the proposal's costs, said in a statement that Rendon "made the case that there’s clearly more work to do before anyone is in a position to vote on revamping California’s healthcare system."
I find it fascinating that Bernie Sanders -whose home state governor ( a leftie if ever one lived) proposed and quickly nixed single payer because the state could not afford it - is still out there trying to spend other people's money for his dreams.
"They are different from each other and different from our system. THAT was my point."
Everything is different from what you say and think, Inga.
The lefty Physicians for a National Health Plan are lefty Harvard salaried docs, like Steffie Woolhandler who has NEVER practiced medicine in any realistic setting.
an adjunct clinical professor at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine. She is also a lecturer in medicine at Harvard Medical School, where she formerly co-directed the general internal medicine internship program.
I know a lot of these people. I don't think you do. They are mostly bureaucrats who might have a half day in clinic once a week as their "clinical experience."
The single payer thing is similar to the global warming thing.
These are socialist ideologues, like Bernie, who have never done anything or run anything in their lives.
They have models of how stuff should work. Where it has been tried, like the British NHS,
Here is PRAISE from the Guardian.
The NHS is the world’s fifth largest employer, an operation so vast that it occupies one in 20 British workers.
Great, eh ?
Maligned for long waiting times and disrupted by endless reorganisation, the NHS may not sound like an international benchmark
The number of practising GPs is 43,605 – with about 36,000 of them in England, meaning that each GP on average deals with approximately 10,000 appointments a year.
That will certainly improve the service you get. DMV here we come !
The number of nationalities of doctors working in the UK. One in three doctors is a foreigner; more than 21,000 of those are European and another 21,000 are Indian, while Pakistan, Nigeria and Egypt all contribute large numbers.
Meanwhile, The young British trained doctors are leaving in droves.
The potential exodus comes as experts warned any cold snap would tip the health service, already “a national disaster”, over the edge. Doctors seeking to work overseas must apply for certificates of current professional status from regulator, the General Medical Council and 264 have applied since Christmas.
Hospitals are under so much strain they are holding meetings each morning to decide which operations cannot be carried out because of the crisis.
Yes, that is certainly what we want, Inga.
@Inga: "Death panels" are committees who set the criteria for giving and withholding medical care that exist in some form wherever government is involved in providing health care. The media and politicians led people to believe Palin was talking about pre-death counseling because that was unimportant and less threatening.
Everyone who lives, or has lived in a country with a degree socialized medicine is familiar with the concept, if not the term.
I don't wish to join in an argument between Inga... and Michael K..."
Then don't, because your comment sounds ignorant. It doesn't take medical knowledge to educate yourself on health care systems. But as I said, if you want a PHYSICIANS take on health care systems, go to the hyperlink I provided, "Physicians for a National Healthcare Program" @2:31. You do know that a physician is a DOCTOR, not a nurse, right?
Also, are you aware that Michael K is on record as being in favor of the French Healthcare system? (OMG!) Michael K and I are in agreement on the French system.
Maybe Clinton was just using "vivid words".
If she were talking about a specific provision, I would agree. However, she and others are simply painting the entire party, regardless of any specific proposal, as wanting to kill off a bunch of Americans and they have done this over a number of years.
That goes way beyond death panels and death taxes.
Planned Retirement has been a progressive liberal goal since Planned Parenthood.
"Michael Kennedy says:
May 14, 2008 at 8:55 pm
I am working on the second half of this post, which will describe the present system and how it works. I got interested in reading an expatriate section in the Telegraph for British retirees living in France and how they can get registered for the system. French satisfaction is very high. The system is in trouble but most of that is about pensions, not the medical part. This is a very good option for US reform."
Health Care Reform- The French System, by Michael K
Inga I am perfectly aware of Michael's position on the French system. I respect his opinion.
My own DOCTOR thinks Obamacare is one of the worst things to ever happen to the medical profession and that single payer is not the answer. I trust him much more a bunch of liberal doctors who want to rum my life.
Also, are you aware that Michael K is on record as being in favor of the French Healthcare system? (OMG!) Michael K and I are in agreement on the French system.
So the entire French system, right? The medical schools, the taxes, the wait times, the level of medical and drug innovation, the rationing - the good with the bad?
And of course we're going to have the same level of immigration as France has. The exact same level of legal and illegal immigrants into our system. Because millions of Spanish speaking illegals working under the table into France might make the whole system collapse.
I just want to be clear. So many people want to talk about this part of this system, and that part of that system. If we could cherry-pick the best outcomes from every system, I'm sure we'd all be happy with that. But you can't. You have to take the whole thing, lock stock and two smoking barrels, or you have to acknowledge that what you have is not "the French system".
"The basic principle of French healthcare is avance de frais, or payment directly from patient to doctor. The freedoms of personal payment, freedom to choose a doctor and the doctor’s freedom to practice, are fundamental to the French system. The patient is reimbursed by insurance, 80% by Securite Sociale, and the rest by assurance complementaire but the principle is supported by the French when they are surveyed and they are suspicious of “free care” as wasteful and liable to abuse."
~Michael K
http://abriefhistory.org/?p=402
There are any number of healthcare systems we can adopt or modify to suit our own population.
My own DOCTOR thinks Obamacare is one of the worst things to ever happen to the medical profession and that single payer is not the answer.
That can't be true. If it were, Physicians for a National Healthcare Program would have to have told us.
@Inga Are you aware that the French system appears to be about as far from, what is thought of as single payer in this country, as one can get? It is a patient managed system not a government managed system. Single payer as envisioned here is the VA.
"Implications for US reform
I have never been a patient in the French medical care system. I do know that French surgery is of the highest quality and the entire laparoscopic surgery movement originated there and in Germany. In 1987, Eddie Joe Reddick, a Nashville surgeon and good ol’ boy, was vacationing in Paris with his wife. Bored with museums, he got permission to observe surgery in a Paris hospital. What he saw revolutionized American surgery. He returned and got a friend, Barry McKernan, to teach him laparoscopy. Within a year, surgeons were taking laparoscopy courses, many from McKernan (as I did in 1988), to learn the new technique. In 1992, I attended a laparoscopy meeting in Bordeaux to learn the newest techniques which were still coming from French surgeons. They have remained at the forefront of world medical advances.
The French system has many similarities to our own. It is complex but the components are similar to those of our own system and that fact may permit integration of gradual changes and allow alteration to respond to problems. The basic reform in France was the Securite Sociale, similar to our Medicare program in 1965. One of the proposals for reform has been to adapt Medicare to the entire population. One way to do this would be to use the existing health insurance industry as the French use the mutuelles, to handle copayment and administration. Health insurance in the US is not really insurance. Employers use insurance companies to administer self-payment programs. Insurance companies have become “administration service organizations.” This is not that much different from the non-profit CNAMTS, which has a board composed of employers, unions and physicians. One difference that may be necessary is to get rid of the adversarial role of the Federal Trade Commisson toward doctors and their organizatons. Any fee negotiation has been banned for 30 years and that inhibits any attempt to deal with for-profit HMOs which are destroying the medical profession, especially in California were they are triumphant. Poor care and bankruptcy for medical groups has been the legacy of for-profit HMOs.
The use of the electronic carte vitale alone would reduce overhead for medical practices by 75%. Estimates of costs of administration for American medicine probably exceed the entire budget for French healthcare. The French have been having problems with cost but much of that comes from factors unrelated to health care, such as the 35 hour work week and the cost of unemployment which discourages employers from adding staff. With a more vibrant economy, the cost of the French healthcare system would be far less than our own as a percent of GDP, and would relieve the burden on manufacturers. Unions would probably resist letting go of their health plans that they administer and have a sense of entitlement to since they were often the trophy of negotiation and even strikes.
P
Straight single payer with no co-payment, like the Canadian system, will never work here. We are not a people who will accept queues and overt rationing. The French system looks enough like our own that a transition would be less painful and could be gradual. It already has the Medicare basic format that it shares with Securite Sociale"
~Michael K
http://abriefhistory.org/?p=403
Blogger khesanh0802 said...
"@Inga Are you aware that the French system appears to be about as far from, what is thought of as single payer in this country, as one can get? It is a patient managed system not a government managed system. Single payer as envisioned here is the VA."
Go argue with Michael K, he's the expert on the French system.
"In a state of mind [that] prevents normal perception ...," is a predominant definition of insanity.
It is becoming evident that TDS, The Democrat's rationale for their party's own vitriol and violence, including psychological projection, their assessment of immigration, particularly young male Muslim immigration, Hillary's, Bernie's, Fauxcahontas', etc., claims about Repub health care proposals, and more, are products of this state of mind.
This does not absolve them of blame for evil or stupid behavior. It just provides a more readily provable explanation for behavior that may be, or appear to be, merely evil or stupid.
Also khesan,
As I've said NUMEROUS times now, I'm not advocating for Single Payer ONLY. I've said there are different types of healthcare systems other countries utilize, (and whose populations would NOT trade their system with ours) of which we could emulate OR form a hybrid of. Do you think the US is so stupid, do you think other countries can do health care better than we could? Why do you give the US such little credit? That's almost unAmerican.
The best option is pre-tax deposits into HSAs in lieu of employer contributions to insurance, catastrophic plans and an honest system by which we care for the indigent and children. Government should require doctors post billing information for customers before - services are rendered. Transparency and free flow of information would be a vast improvement for all concerned. Courts should be instructed to treat poor communication of prices before delivery of service against the collection efforts of doctors and medical service providers.
This would free doctors from the current nightmare of record keeping and insurance filing. It would make consumers price conscious.
The unused portions of HSAs could be used for retirement when people experience good health.
The problems, of course, from the perspective of government, are the missing opportunities for corruption and graft.
Health Reform- the transition
I have been reviewing the details of the French health care system, as it was established in 1945, and how it has evolved in a history somewhat similar to our own. The Second World War marked the divergence between the two countries. Wartime labor shortages left us with an employer-based system that has become too expensive and rigid. France, in the social upheaval of defeat, had the chance for radical reform and took it. Britain took a similar opportunity and went another way with single payer, tax supported health care in the NHS. The pre-war differences in the three countries made some of this probable, if not inevitable.
"What do we do now ? Why is it necessary to reform the US system ?
Our system is very expensive and does not have universal coverage. Those are the two features most listed by critics. People who are covered are largely satisfied with the care they receive but are often uneasy about the cost and the possibility of being left without coverage if they develop a serious chronic illness or lose a job. Our system has evolved away from community rating, in which everyone paid the same premium based only on age and sex. Now we have experience rating, in which a history of illness can make us uninsurable.
One of my patients 20 years ago had had a thyroid cancer, a form of cancer that is 100% curable when properly treated. A couple of years later, she needed a breast biopsy for what was almost certainly a benign lump. Her insurance excluded coverage because she had had thyroid cancer, totally unrelated to the present condition.
The US has 50 states and there have been a few attempts to use states as “laboratories of democracy” to test health care reform experiments. These do not work (except, perhaps, for Hawaii, which is relatively isolated) because states are not large enough and people will move around to acquire benefits. Any real reform has to be national. What I propose is to move to a universal Medicare program which would pay 80% of health care costs. The co-payment would be paid by private insurance, just as is done in France. Costs would be subject to “Evidence-based Medicine” criteria for reimbursement. If people want chiropractic treatment or acupuncture or massage, let them pay for it without subsidy. This may, in fact, be the most difficult part of the problem to solve as our state regulation is highly politicized and influenced by lobbies of various health care organizations."
~Michael K
http://abriefhistory.org/?p=404
OH my! Sounds a little like Medicare for All, huh? Wow, did Michael K forget what he advocated here?
To be fair, Inga is not advocating single payer.
She does, however, support the Democrats who want single payer but do want to "address many serious issues, such as financing, delivery of care, cost controls" when they consider legislation.
(Quote from above comment.)
The reader is left to discern whether Inga wants what she writes she wants or whether she wants what the people she supports profess to want.
Speaking of DEATH! Panels...
Michael Kennedy says:
May 18, 2008 at 7:28 am
"DM, there are some misunderstandings about the cost of care of the elderly. End-of-life and the elderly are not the same issue. I did a study a few years ago leading to a grant proposal (which didn’t get funded for reasons that are interesting) to change the care of what are called “the frail elderly,” usually people over 85 years old. The peak cost of care is about the age of 70. After 80, it falls off quite sharply. Elderly people do not want expensive care, like joint replacement and so on. They want to be comfortable. Also, there is a selection process that goes on. Bad genes and bad lifestyles result in death around the age of 70 to 75. People who live to 80 and up tend to be healthy people. There is a trend to excessive spending on end-of-life care but that is changing. The hospice movement, for example, has had a lot to do with it."
http://abriefhistory.org/?p=404
Inga thinks freely chosen hospice care is the equivalent of a panel of government "Top Men" telling people what they must do.
Let that sink in.
Freedom = Slavery
Michael K and I are in agreement on the French system.
That's true but it does make me wonder how much you understand of a "Medicare for all" program.
We could solve a lot of the Medicare problems we have right here now with a simple reform.
"Balance Billing" is not allowed in Medicare. I am not allowed to charge anyone, including a cash patient, less than I bill (not collect) for Medicare. Medicare pays about 20% or billed charges or less. When I was seeing a pain specialist regularly, his office charge was $115 and the Medicare payment on the EOB was $11. Less than 10%.
Medicare could become very much like the French system if it allowed charges to be negotiated between doctor and patient.
When I moved to Tucson, I wondered if I could find a doctor who would accept Medicare and I was prepared to pay cash to a "concierge" practice.
The Mayo Clinic has announced that it will no longer see Medicare patients in Arizona where there are several clinics.
Instead, Lyndon Johnson decided that care would be "free" for the over 65 crowd. The AMA opposed this program and proposed what it called "Eldercare" which would be income based.
The history is very complex and I recommend France because it uses a market mechanism to control utilization and payroll deduction to fund it. It is also a large country and, thus, more comparable to our own. Germany has an older system and it is better adapted to its population pattern which has many more villages.
France also has the highest satisfaction rates in Europe and has had for many years.
To be very fair to Michael K, he's has some caveats on the Medicare as a vehicle for health care reform model.... what happened to you Michael? You were once a forward thinker.
"Health Reform- a few further thoughts
In recommending Medicare as the vehicle for the basic coverage in a national health plan modeled on the French system, I did not intend to suggest that Medicare, as that vehicle, would be a government agency. I was recommending a non-profit corporation funded by payroll or other contributions from beneficiaries. Medicare, in theory, is funded by the Medicare tax contributions of workers prior to retirement. A system for active workers would be called the same name and the two programs, plus Medicaid, would be rolled into one system. It would be funded, however, not by general tax receipts but by the assessment for health care, analogous to the French funds, the largest of which, CNAMTS, is for salaried workers. There are many other funds for other workers such as agricultural or managerial workers."
~Michael K
http://abriefhistory.org/?p=405
"Inga thinks freely chosen hospice care is the equivalent of a panel of government "Top Men" telling people what they must do.
Let that sink in.
Freedom = Slavery"
Really? That's news to me.
A lot of US systems are defective in global terms.
US medical insurance and healthcare delivery is of course one of these. As Michael K has shown, the French (and very likely also the Japanese) system is a good reform model.
Education is another, and one that is more significant. US public K-12 is, for most of the population, horrible, and even in G7 terms it is enormously expensive. US universities are ridiculously expensive and inefficient in global terms, and for most students, cruelly wasteful of their valuable time. Foreign models are vastly superior, even more so than with medical care.
The obstacles to reform in either case, the honest appraisal and adoption of superior foreign models, are US political interests. The US is an extremely corrupt polity. And the most corrupt entities are the permanent government in Washington and the Democratic party.
Inga, I am pleased you are reading those old posts of mine.
The Frail Elderly proposal was enthusiastically supported by the faculty medical group at UCI. It was the hospital administrator who vetoed it. He soon after became the CEO of UCLA Medical Center.
I tried to do an analysis of HMO vs fee for service care of Medicaid patients around the same time. Orange County had just put all MediCal (Medicaid) patients into a county HMO. The FFS data was still available and I wanted to compare to see how the outcomes for the new vs the previous care did. We had the funding and the statistical analysis support on board. All we needed was the approval of the Medicaid program to proceed. I had been doing similar analyses of ESRD patient care already. I just needed their permission to use their data.
They turned us down flat.
"Freedom = Slavery"
Really? That's news to me."
Did you notice my description of the Dutch treatment of COPD patients ?
If a Dutch ER doc admits a COPD patient to ICU, he/she gets fired.
Inga @ 3:48
You state death panels and hospice are somehow related, or what you have written is incoherent. I assume you are not incoherent but perhaps you will disabuse me of that notion.
So, universal medical care based on a capitalist system (i.e. organic economics) to control costs and corruption, a triage system to ensure greater and immediate availability, and traditional government oversight as an independent auditor.
This separation of duties would mitigate the recurring economic resets forced by central (i.e. monopoly) practices (e.g. mortgage crisis, equity crisis, education crisis, etc.).
Jeez!
"Inga @ 3:48
You state death panels and hospice are somehow related, or what you have written is incoherent. I assume you are not incoherent but perhaps you will disabuse me of that notion."
I absolutely did not. Besides, that was a quote from Michael K's blog. If you have concerns about what was said, address your concerns to Michael K.
You introduced the topic of "Death Panels" in your own post and then quoted Michael K writing about hospice. If you did not mean to connect the two concepts, please type what you are thinking more clearly.
Or, let's be honest, quit trying to score cheap political points. Try honesty. It will feel odd at first but you might get used to it.
"Speaking of DEATH! Panels..."
Birkel, you're too obtuse to figure out that this was dark humor. I agree with Michael K's comment on the frail elderly.
I see your 4:10 PM comment admits incoherence.
I accept that explanation.
Birkel, you are quite obtuse today.
It was a joke. Ah, yes! The siren song of every charlatan.
I apologize in advance for being obtuse by reading the words that you typed and assuming you meant them. I deserve to be called out for applying the standard rules of written English, common definitions of words and standard argumentative forms in ways that revealed you as a poor writer (incoherent) or dishonest.
I am indifferent.
"It was a joke. Ah, yes! The siren song of every charlatan."
Just like Trump's nutty tweets and comments only being "humor" that we "obtuse" just don't get, lol!
Inga
Thank you for the link to the Physicians for a National Healthcare Program. There are 20,000 members of this non-profit made up of physicians, health care professional and medical students. Do you happen to know the composition of these groups? The organization has been around for thirty years so their progress in signing up new adherents is, say, poor.
Much is made of the Canadian healthcare system. Canada has about three million fewer people than California and is spread out across an entire continent. I think we should test drive single payer in California and adhere to the same system Canada had at the outset which is to prohibit private purveyors of any medical services within the jurisdiction. This would be an excellent way for us to determine the efficacy of the program before adopting it on a national basis.
If commenters here wish to be held to the same standard they decry in others, I am powerless to change their respective minds.
As a generous person I would hope better for Inga, in Inga's mind, than she sees our of President Trump. Damocles and Sisyphus think you deserve better.
out of President Trump
Shoot!
The Washington Examinerbis could not be reached for comment.
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2017/june/new-survey-shows-a-majority-of-chicago-area-doctors-support-medicare-for-all
New survey shows a majority of Chicago-area doctors support Medicare for all
90% of regional physicians believe that health care is a basic human right
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE, June 20, 2017
For a copy of the report please contact: Clare Fauke, communications specialist, Physicians for a National Health Program, clare@pnhp.org or 312-782-6006
A new poll of more than one thousand Chicago-area physicians finds that a majority support a universal, single-payer health system and an overwhelming number reject the American Health Care Act (AHCA), the Republican House plan to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Chicagoland physicians prefer a single-payer plan two-to-one over the ACA, and three-to-one over the AHCA.By similar margins, physicians believe that improved Medicare for all is a preferable health financing system over both the ACA and the AHCA. The study was conducted in April and May by the Chicago Medical Society, which represents 17,000 physicians serving more than five million patients in the Chicago area.
The study’s key findings include:
Nearly 90% of respondents agreed that health care is a human right that should be made available to all individuals, similar to basic education, police and fire protection (70% agreed strongly and 18% agreed somewhat).
Asked to choose which proposal would provide “the best care to the greatest number of people for a given amount of funding,” 56% chose single-payer/improved Medicare for all, 26% chose the ACA and 18% chose the AHCA.
When asked to provide their views of competing health care systems, single payer was viewed favorably by 67% of doctors, the ACA was viewed favorably by 63% of doctors, and the AHCA was viewed favorably by only 23%.
“Because of our profit-driven, multi-payer health system, doctors are spending hours each day on paperwork and billing, hours that could have been spent on patient care,” said Claudia Fegan, M.D., a Chicago-based physician and national coordinator for Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP). “Not surprisingly, a growing number of health care providers reject the AHCA and support the simplicity and efficiency of improved Medicare for all.”
Dr. Fegan notes that in contrast to the AHCA, H.R. 676, the Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act, would provide immediate, comprehensive coverage to all Americans and yield more than $500 billion dollars in yearly administrative savings. H.R. 676 has gained a record 112 co-sponsors, which represents a majority of House Democrats."
"Scare tactics used on both sides... scary."
Yeah. Leftists are openly attempting to assassinate Republican members of Congress, but "both sides ... scary."
Go to hell with your false equivalency.
"My own DOCTOR thinks Obamacare is one of the worst things to ever happen to the medical profession and that single payer is not the answer."
"That can't be true. If it were, Physicians for a National Healthcare Program would have to have told us."
Actually NO, they wouldn't have. They were never in favor of the ACA.
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/878210
April 4, 2017
"The percentage of US physicians who support the idea of a single-payer, government-run healthcare system is on the rise, according to a new survey. Forty-eight percent of the more than 500 physicians who responded to a LinkedIn poll in February favored switching to a single-payer system, while 32% of them opposed it and 21% were uncertain. In contrast, a study published in 2009 in the Journal of General Internal Medicine found that 42% of US physicians endorsed a single-payer approach."
Illinois, the broke state, has doctors that want the state to pay for health care?
Well educated idiots no longer surprise.
Unscientific LinkedIn polls matter?
Has Black Lives Matter been consulted on this cultural appropriation?
"But the public wants single-payer healthcare. According to a recent Economist/YouGov poll:
That’s 60% of Americans either strongly or somewhat in favor. Only 23% of Americans oppose single-payer. Figure that if the 17% who don’t know turn out to be 60–40 in favor of single payer, that puts the public at nearly 70% in favor of it. Seventy-percent! Do you understand how rare it is for 70% of Americans to agree on something?
Even Trump has said we should have “universal healthcare” and praised the systems of other countries that have single-payer. Over at HotAir, AllahPundit theorizes that if Trump gets reelected in 2020 but is stuck with a Democratic Congress, he will be free to negotiate with them a single-payer healthcare system.
The brilliant conservative pundit Charles Krauthammer recently went on Fox News and said “We will have single-payer healthcare within seven years.” He points out that even though ObamaCare is collapsing, the public has still largely become convinced that healthcare is a “right,” and therefore it’s inevitable that people will demand single-payer in the near future. You should watch the whole video in the link, because Krauthammer absolutely nails it.
CHARLES: “The terms of debate are entirely on the grounds of the liberal argument that everybody ought to have healthcare.”
CHRIS WALLACE: “So how do we get to single-payer? Are you saying the Senate is not going to approve the House bill [American Healthcare Act, which was just passed Thursday]?”
CHARLES: “In the short run, I think the Senate is not going to accept the House plan. It’ll come up with a plan of its own. It’ll go to conference, who knows where it’ll go. It’ll be a rickety arrangement. It’s likely that Republicans will suffer at the polls, and as a result of that, you’ll get a sea change of opinion. Then, at that point, there’s only two ways it can go: to a radically individualist system where the market rules, or to single payer, and the country is not going to go back to radical individualism.”
So it’s only a matter of time."
https://tipolitics.com/i-support-single-payer-healthcare-3c3e8591856f
And Hillary is not president.
"This brings me to an excellent article I read the other day by Matthew Walther of The Week. It’s called “The Conservative Case for Single Payer”:
"Nearly everyone agrees that our semi-private insurance-driven system is mad. It makes all the logistical sense of having the clerk at the Shell station file a claim with Geico every time you put gas in your car. The Affordable Care Act exacerbated everything wrong with the present arrangement by creating a permanent carve-out for insurance companies.
The solution should be obvious. Single payer is the only way forward. The U.S. government should provide health insurance for every one of its citizens."
He addresses the common concerns over a single-payer system:
"Who’s going to pay for it? Please. Every other wealthy country in the world ensures universal health-care coverage, and we are spending far more than any of them to let people above the bottom and well into what remains of the middle fall through the cracks. What about innovation? they say, as if Costa Rica, with a GDP smaller than New Hampshire’s, were not a leader in the treatment of diseases such as pancreatic cancer and a destination for innovation-seeking medical tourists from around the world. (It is curious how this objection never seems to spring up in the case of the military. Should we privatize that too, lest we fall behind the denizens of the SeaOrbiter in the quest for better fighter jets?)""
Inga doesn't favor single payer. She does visit and paste approvingly to polls that favor single payer.
I prefer freedom to slavery. I prefer the 13th Amendment.
Cut and paste
I think we should test drive single payer in California and adhere to the same system Canada had at the outset which is to prohibit private purveyors of any medical services within the jurisdiction. This would be an excellent way for us to determine the efficacy of the program before adopting it on a national basis.
It would do wonders for the population problem.
I understand there is a high proportion of the population in favor of free money also.
Me, too. What the heck. I might as well get some.
"Cut and paste"
Yes indeed, but are you willing to learn anything from them? Doubtful.
I'm open to Single Payer or some hybrid of it. My mind isn't closed to any change, as yours is apparently. Epistemic Closure is what you suffer from Birkel. Very sad.
If the California single pay experiment fails, or should I say when it fails, we should go to step two which is to require all members of the government to be enrolled in the VA hospital system. There is no reason why our bureaucrats should not have the very best government health care.
"I think we should test drive single payer in California and adhere to the same system Canada had at the outset which is to prohibit private purveyors of any medical services within the jurisdiction. This would be an excellent way for us to determine the efficacy of the program before adopting it on a national basis."
--------------
"It would do wonders for the population problem."
Has someone just yelled "DEATH!"? We have now gone full circle, lol.
If the Republicans are the party of death, they seem to be killing off the lobbyists. If the Democrats say this bill will kill tens of thousands, they may be describing jobs on K Street.
What you're hearing just might be the sound of the swamp draining.
Dick Woodruff, senior vice president of federal advocacy at the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, said nobody from the health care industry had a seat at the table to write the bill.
“I’m not kidding. Nobody,” Mr. Woodruff said.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/22/health-care-lobbyists-locked-out-of-republican-pro/
Read what I wrote, above, before you try yet again to put your words into my mouth. My preferred plan is truly radical.
The truth will set you free. You want government control but are a mealy mouth advocate. Be bold!
Just explain its a late-term abortion and the dems will be fine with it.
Personally, I would recommend making Obamacare optional. It really is just Medicaid with higher income limits.
Let those who want to keep it do so. Everybody else should be able to buy what insurance they want.
Then, of course, you block grant Medicaid to the states. If California wants to be generous, do so with their own taxpayers' money.
Real catastrophic insurance for the young, the group that the individual mandate was aimed at, is cheap.
The rest, the real Middle Class, would do best with medical savings accounts backed up with catastrophic reinsurance.
Pre-existing conditions should be Medicaid.
"I think we should test drive single payer in California and adhere to the same system Canada had at the outset which is to prohibit private purveyors of any medical services within the jurisdiction. This would be an excellent way for us to determine the efficacy of the program before adopting it on a national basis."
--------------
There's a reason Canada doesn't have that anymore. Lolololol
Wait times for surgeries by province are available if you google.
Tennessee couldn't make it work. Oregon can't make it work, which other states tried and failed?
Seeing Red
You see what I have done there. Good. But even with their modifications allowing private practice Canadians are still subject to a brutal triage system. I think the best would be for us to compel our bureaucrats and elected officials to receive their medical care via the Veterans Administration. Give it to them for free free free.
Inga
I believe the good doctor means that people would evacuate California rather than suffer under a strict single pay system.
"Read what I wrote, above, before you try yet again to put your words into my mouth."
Jeez Birkel, are you addressing me here?
The world and the blog's comments sections don't revolve around you. My comment about "DEATH!" was directed at Michael K, and BTW it was a JOKE. You are a dull boy Birkel, no sense of humor what so ever. Or are you merely obtuse?
"I believe the good doctor means that people would evacuate California rather than suffer under a strict single pay system."
Maybe so, but maybe he meant "DEATH!"
It's a joke folks.
Lying liars continue lying. News at 11.
Post a Comment