home

Is Selfish Socialism The Essence of Laffer-ism?

Via Yglesias, Andrew Sabl calling the seniors opposed to health care reform (what I have termed Laffer-ism, but "Selfish Socialism" works for me too) selfish socialists:

Some of the most virulent opponents of health reform are the elderly, who already have government-provided health insurance. While some may be too silly to know that that's what they have, a great many assuredly do know it, and are happy to pull up the ladder behind them. Medicare is already very successful and very generous. Under universal coverage, it's unlikely to get much better (except for prescription drug coverage, but not all the elderly take a huge number of pills). And it could, for all one knows, get worse. To avoid that risk, better that some youngsters go without.

This reasoning, though, is brutal--too brutal to acknowledge. While we're a pretty selfish country, "I'm all right, Jack" is not an argument people comfortably make when others' lives are at stake. But "if this passes, they'll euthanize me and my friends" is another kind of argument altogether. It's false, but easy to seize on as a morally comfortable pretext for opposing a bill that threatens one's self-interest.

Let the generational pie fight begin.

Speaking for me only

< Mild-Mannered Hotel Florist Key Player in Indonesia Hotel Bombings | The Media You Have >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Begin? (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by andgarden on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 11:37:07 AM EST
    It's been running for weeks. The President hasn't adequately addressed protecting Medicare in his public statements.

    Lockbox!

    In a way (5.00 / 0) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 11:55:09 AM EST
    that is nonresponsive to the point being made.

    To wit, 'I do not want to take a chance on MY socialist safety net in order to provide a safety net for anyone else.'

    Parent

    No, I think it is more like (5.00 / 4) (#78)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 12:36:16 PM EST
    "Why should I trust that you want to protect my safety net when I hear you trying to find money in that safety net that you can use to help pay for/provide a safety net for others?"

    I don't understand why that is so hard for people to see.

    The Democratic party is being led by someone who likes Republican ideas, has already expressed his concerns about Social Security, has expressed that maybe people should just take a pill instead of something more expensive, has shown a much greater propensity to give to those who already have - and make backroom deals to make sure they continue to have it - so I think the days of the traditional social safety net Democratic party are over, and people who are elderly and some who aren't quite there yet feel they have reason not to trust this Democratic party or this Democratic president to look out for them.

    Parent

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 12:48:49 PM EST
    I trust them Birfers and Republicans on this.

    Look, you must realize that what you just wrote has absolutely nothing to do with what we are seeing on this issue.

    I am frankly finding a lot of you quite amusing. You really think what you write reflects in nay way how this is coming across or hell, even polling?

    Dream on.
     

    Parent

    Who said anything about (5.00 / 8) (#88)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 01:21:05 PM EST
    trusting the birthers and the GOP on this issue?  Not me - the birthers are religious fundamentalists and the GOP is well, the GOP, but does it have to follow that just because these groups are so bad and unquestionably do not have the right answer on health care reform, the Democrats win even though the plans they have come up with are bad ones?

    For someone who admits to not following the health care reform issue, and who has also admitted not knowing much about what is being proposed, what those proposals mean, and whether they will or will not be moving us in a better direction, you ought not to be so quick to dismiss with amusement and disdain the opinions of others who have been studying these issues.

    I think there is a concerted and calculated effort to make seniors into selfish socialists, rather than address the deficiencies and problems with the five plans/proposals on the table, all in a rather desperate effort to bolster support for plans that are so cr@ppy they cannot stand on their own.  Do you really think that if Democrats believed they had the best plan possible they would be delaying its implementation for three years?  How do you imagine that's going to play politically?  How's that going to poll?  Where's their credibility on the "crisis" if we can afford to wait three more years to start solving it?

    Maybe if you knew more about the plans, you might not be so amused at what people like me have to say about it.


    Parent

    Sure it is (none / 0) (#26)
    by andgarden on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 11:59:35 AM EST
    to they extent they believe that providing a safety net for other is "taking a chance" on what they have.

    Parent
    The point is (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 12:02:36 PM EST
    that it takes dishonesty or self deception to believe that Republicans have the preservation of Medicare in mind here.

    Parent
    They need to be reminded of (none / 0) (#42)
    by andgarden on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 12:06:27 PM EST
    what Newt and company tried to do in 1995. Gee, who's speaking this evening who could bring that up?

    Parent
    It's Obama's show now (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 12:08:05 PM EST
    Big Dog can't do it.

    Parent
    Obama needs to get rid of Grassley (5.00 / 0) (#49)
    by MKS on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 12:11:07 PM EST
    Enough already.....I like bipartisanship as an abstract concept.  It's been tried on health care and didn't work.

    Parent
    You think he won't talk about healthcare? (none / 0) (#50)
    by andgarden on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 12:11:18 PM EST
    I think he will.

    Parent
    He can talk until (5.00 / 0) (#57)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 12:15:58 PM EST
    he is blue in the face but it is of no political import.

    Parent
    I hope Bill does. (none / 0) (#60)
    by brodie on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 12:18:36 PM EST
    Despite his being in disfavor with most in the MSM, he still makes for probably the most persuasive Dem in the land, and on health care reform speaks from hard-learned experience.

    Obama will need more than just Obama to take the message to the public, and that's even assuming Obama begins to consistently display his A game in all public appearances, something which has been inconsistent so far.  

    It's just too tough a battle for one person alone to carry the burden.

    Parent

    I hope so! (none / 0) (#129)
    by sallywally on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 05:46:24 PM EST
    The nation still loves him.

    Parent
    Be careful there BTD (none / 0) (#62)
    by MO Blue on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 12:19:52 PM EST
    You are using Republican talking points when describing Medicare. Medicare is a single payer system and not socialized medicine. The  VA system is socialized medicine.

    Parent
    Making a point (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 12:23:59 PM EST
    To be honest, I am surprised I have to explain it to you.

    Parent
    Well after all I am a Senior citizen (none / 0) (#73)
    by MO Blue on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 12:29:43 PM EST
    some days I'm not as quick as others. :) Evidently this is one of those days, because I really don't get it.

    Parent
    I guess you do not (none / 0) (#75)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 12:32:25 PM EST
    I am using the "government run health care" line.

    Parent
    Or Medicare for all! (none / 0) (#2)
    by dk on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 11:37:50 AM EST
    Well, we should take care of our elderly (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by vicndabx on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 11:40:43 AM EST
    they shouldn't have to take care of us.  I can only imagine what we will be like and what status quo's we will want preserved when one day we are no longer spry, fit, and indeed, less flexible when it comes to change.

    Hmm (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 11:53:50 AM EST
    How about our poor?

    Parent
    In theory, Medicaid is supposed to cover them (5.00 / 0) (#23)
    by andgarden on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 11:58:06 AM EST
    But it's just not generous enough.

    It's really a wonder why Democrats are too afraid to expand the programs we have. But they are. . .

    Parent

    BTW (5.00 / 0) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 11:59:05 AM EST
    How about our RICH seniors? What about them? We have to take care of them too?

    Parent
    Here's the question we're not addressing (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by andgarden on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 12:01:18 PM EST
    head on: is healthcare more like buying groceries or having police and fire services? Most liberals believe that the latter answer is obviously true.

    Parent
    Only The Ones (5.00 / 0) (#31)
    by squeaky on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 12:02:18 PM EST
    Who have developed a taste for catfood over caviar.

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#29)
    by vicndabx on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 12:01:38 PM EST
    Those folks that can support themselves should do so.  My point at the onset is that yes, you're probably right some of these old folks are dead wrong and misinformed.  Do we as young folk attack them for it?  I don't think that's a winner for us politically.

    Parent
    Some of them (5.00 / 0) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 12:03:20 PM EST
    are dishonest is my point.

    The Republican ones in particular.

    Not all seniors are the same.

    Parent

    Those who are protesting (5.00 / 0) (#46)
    by MKS on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 12:09:15 PM EST
    abortion rights at health care townhalls (and there are a lot of such people) are likely using Medicare as a rhetorical weapon....

    Of course, Republican seniors would never stoop so low.

    Parent

    I can only speak for myself (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by MO Blue on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 11:41:32 AM EST
    I am opposed to what I consider weak ineffectual health insurance legislation currently being considered in Congress that will not contain costs and will only strengthen the insurance industry. I am opposed, not because I want to pull up the ladder of Medicare after me once I obtain it, but because I want to expand Medicare or the advantages of Medicare coverage to all.

    A SelfLESS Socialist (5.00 / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 11:53:24 AM EST
    Medicare is not socialized medicine (none / 0) (#53)
    by MO Blue on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 12:13:57 PM EST
    It is a single payer system.

    The original definition of socialized medicine, before it was distorted by Republicans to defeat health care reform, is as follows:

    The original meaning was confined to systems in which the government operates health care facilities and employs health care professionals. [7][8][9][10] This narrower usage would apply to the British National Health Service hospital trusts and health systems that operate in other countries as diverse as Finland, Spain, Israel, and Cuba. The United States' Veterans Health Administration, and the medical departments of the US Army, Navy, and Air Force would also fall under this narrow definition. When used in this way, the narrow definition permits a clear distinction from single payer health insurance systems, in which the government finances health care but is not involved in care delivery.[11][12] wikepedia

    I am not in anyway advocating for socialized medicine. I am a strong advocate for a single payer system. I would even settle for a real ROBUST public option that is available to all. Let people really have a choice in how they receive health care. Will I support legislation that I feel only increases the bottom line of the insurance industry and does little to contain costs. No I will not. I have had enough of paying more and more to receive less and less health care.

    Parent

    Hmmm (none / 0) (#56)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 12:15:16 PM EST
    I do not dispute the definition of "socialism" with you, I am using a political trick here.

    Parent
    Confused? (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by MO Blue on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 12:25:56 PM EST
    I do not see the advantage of using socialized medicine in describing Medicare.

    It may be that I have tunnel vision since for too many years I have seen the term used incorrectly to prevent people from getting adequate health care in the U.S.

    Parent

    I think it is obvious (none / 0) (#74)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 12:30:02 PM EST
    Think of Weiner's proposed vote on eliminating all government run health insurance.

    Parent
    O.K. (none / 0) (#84)
    by MO Blue on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 12:43:14 PM EST
    Now I understand. Hot button issue with me when Dems speak of socialized medicine and single payer as being basically the same thing. I will now go back and read your post again without the blinders on.

    Parent
    So which framing is it? (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 11:48:19 AM EST
    Are the elderly eating catfood and having to trade that catfood for medicine?

    Or are they the selfish, affluent, me-me-me generation?

    Democrats use both framing depending on which end they want to pursue.

    I'm sick of this.  I know several elderly who are afraid to death to lose their benefits.  And while Obama can say, "trust me" all day, that amorphous set of 5 proposals which include the amorphous "eliminate fraud and waste" proposal does not instill trust.

    This kind of thing makes me furious.

    I understand their feelings (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Steve M on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 11:52:17 AM EST
    Since time immemorial, the Democratic Party has always been about slashing Social Security Medicare with a gigantic machete every chance they get.  I'd be worried too.

    Parent
    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 11:52:54 AM EST
    This is a different (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 11:54:28 AM EST
    time.  Making fun of my elderly relatives isn't helping the situation.  

    Parent
    How about criticizing them? (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 11:56:10 AM EST
    Can we criticize them? If not, why not?

    Parent
    Unlike the emerging Democratic majority (5.00 / 0) (#30)
    by andgarden on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 12:01:57 PM EST
    they always vote.

    Parent
    Sure they vote (5.00 / 0) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 12:05:16 PM EST
    Here's a question for you - how many votes do you think are going to change because of this debate? AMONGST seniors?

    I say . . .  ZERO percent.

    And guess what, unlike the EDM, they vote no matter what. No need to "energize" them.

    Parent

    As you well know, politics is about culture (none / 0) (#47)
    by andgarden on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 12:09:50 PM EST
    as much as policy. I would not put it past the Republicans running in MO, OH, and PA next year trying to claim that "Obamacare" will weaken Medicare. Will seniors be receptive? I would guess so; election results aren't set in stone.

    Parent
    Nope (5.00 / 0) (#55)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 12:14:28 PM EST
    You are, as are many people, under the false impression that "seniors" are majority Dems. They ain't. They ALL vote in high numbers but they split 55-45 GOP.

    Guess what, in 2010, they will split 55-45 GOP. As they have for a while.

    The REAL issue is one you hint at - how to get the EDM out to vote in 2010.

    What's Obama's plan for THAT?

    Parent

    It varies by region (none / 0) (#61)
    by andgarden on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 12:19:23 PM EST
    But Dems in some places can do better or worse than that among seniors.

    How to get the EDM out? There's some policy stuff he should get to work on (immigration, education, guns), but he also needs to succeed with healthcare and keep the bandwagon moving.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#66)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 12:22:56 PM EST
    In Appalachia . . .  

    Parent
    heh (none / 0) (#70)
    by andgarden on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 12:26:50 PM EST
    The Blue Ridge still doesn't like Obama. No surprise there.

    Parent
    Well, since just last year (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by dk on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 11:57:55 AM EST
    the Democratic Party leadership voted to give away trillions of taxpayer dollars to big finance with far too few strings, I don't think it's crazy to have a healthy dose of skepticism.

    Parent
    Steve's point is quite different (5.00 / 0) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 12:00:18 PM EST
    Skepticism does not describe buying into the Gingrich GOP (the ACTUAL Party that did try and cut Medicare) on this.

    That is insanity, not skepticism.

    Parent

    Perhaps it should be (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by dk on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 12:04:51 PM EST
    made clear which seniors you are criticizing, then.  The post you put up discusses "the elderly" as if they are some monolithic block.

    I know quite a few elderly people who are quite critical of the current plans from the left.  

    Parent

    Interestingly (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 12:07:11 PM EST
    This is the first line of my blockquote - "Some of the most virulent opponents of health reform are the elderly, who already have government-provided health insurance."

    Seems like a pretty well expressed definition of who we are talking about here.

    Did you miss that part?

    Parent

    The "some" in that sentence (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by dk on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 12:10:23 PM EST
    refers to the virulent opponents, not the elderly.


    Parent
    Pedantry of the highest order (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 12:12:27 PM EST
    If that's what you are up to, include me out.

    Parent
    No, it is not pedantry. (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by dk on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 12:18:29 PM EST
    I just don't agree with the assertions that a) all, or even most, senior citizens who oppose the plans being offered by the administration and congressional democrats are only doing so for selfish reasons and b) all people who oppose the plans of the administration and congressional Democrats are wingnuts.

    I think the Sable quote you offered is sloppy writing that insinuates just that.

    If the point is that there are wingnuts out there, and that some of those wingnuts currently receive medicare, that's true of course.  

    Parent

    Birthers and Deathers (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by MKS on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 12:39:54 PM EST
    seem to predominate among the opponents at the town halls....And many of those birthers and deathers receive Medicare but don't want government run health care for others....

    The point seems valid....

    Parent

    Reminds me of all the people (none / 0) (#97)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 01:53:09 PM EST
    during the campaign who wanted taxes raised on everybody else but themselves.

    Parent
    No one is trying to deny (none / 0) (#102)
    by MKS on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 02:06:24 PM EST
    those making over 250k a year of healthcare....or housing or food or other necessities....

    Parent
    Whatever (none / 0) (#65)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 12:22:13 PM EST
    IIRC the Democrats strongly opposed (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by MO Blue on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 01:15:05 PM EST
    a Bush 2009 proposal to cut the Medicare budget by $178 billion. But all of a sudden cutting the Medicare budget is a good thing.

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 0) (#90)
    by Steve M on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 01:31:26 PM EST
    it comes down to the difference between cutting costs and cutting services, right?  When the Medicare budget doubles, unfortunately it doesn't mean everyone is getting twice as much health care.

    If I tell my wife I'm going to save us $50 a month on groceries by shopping at a different store, should I expect her to flip out and say, "Liar, you're probably just going to buy us less food!"

    Parent

    Sure, but that assumes (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by dk on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 01:33:16 PM EST
    there is some easy and error-free way to cut costs without cutting services.  

    Parent
    If you were my wife (5.00 / 0) (#93)
    by Steve M on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 01:41:14 PM EST
    I should hope you'd give me the benefit of the doubt on that.

    Seniors have known the Democratic Party a lot longer than my wife has known me, and there is no way they should be assuming the Democrats have a secret plan to cut Medicare benefits even though they're saying the exact opposite.

    My grandmother is 85, she can't even remember the names of my kids, and she would laugh and laugh at the idea that we should believe the Republicans when they say the Democrats want to cut Medicare.

    Parent

    Sorry, my point wasn't clear perhaps. (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by dk on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 01:52:13 PM EST
    What I meant was that even assuming your motives were absolutely pure, it is not so easy, and still would be prone to error.

    To stick with your grocery analogy, let's say you would still buy the same quantity of food, but that quite possibly the quality of the food would suffer.  You may do your best to make sure that doesn't happen, but it's still quite possible you'll get some rotten tomatoes no matter how hard you try not to.

    And, as far as the Democratic party goes, I'm sure you realize too that, while they are certainly not the Republicans, they are also not the party of FDR anymore.  On healthcare alone, big insurance and big pharma have a lot of money invested in the congressional Democratic leadership, including Obama.  There is a lot of pressure being put on the Democrats to ignore the will of 72% of the people who want government run healthcare available to everyone, and this pressure has already succeded, even though as individuals Democratic politicians are far more supportive of government than Republicans.

    Parent

    Depends on how competitive (none / 0) (#91)
    by andgarden on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 01:33:07 PM EST
    the grocery market is.

    Parent
    As far as I knew (none / 0) (#20)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 11:57:05 AM EST
    Democrats weren't about backroom deals with insurance companies, and about making sure that Medicare can't negotiate for lower drug prices (which would have been one of the biggest eliminators of fraud and waste).  

    But they are now.

    We have an extremely "centrist" form of government now.  Laughing it off is your mistake.

    Parent

    Yep (5.00 / 0) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 11:58:15 AM EST
    Your finger is on the pulse.

    Do you REALLY think that what you just wrote bears ANY resemblance whatsoever to what GOP Seniors are thinking?

    Pull my other leg.

    Parent

    Right (5.00 / 0) (#39)
    by Steve M on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 12:05:03 PM EST
    It's a whole new Democratic Party now, where the 45 years of enacting and protecting Medicare means nothing.  Maybe Nancy Pelosi will vote to nuke Iran tomorrow, we just have no way of knowing!

    No one is forced to trust Obama or any other Democrat when they say there won't be cuts to Medicare benefits, but I certainly don't have to agree that their lack of trust is grounded in any sort of rationality.  If seniors don't feel like their Medicare is safe with this kind of Democratic majority then they never ever will.

    Parent

    I saw an interview of a woman (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by MKS on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 12:18:19 PM EST
    who said she didn't trust Obama on his denial of death panels.  The reporter asked her why she didn't trust Obama.  She said he had lied about other things......

    I'll bet she was a birther.  

    Health care is not being debated honestly, e.g., it will cost too much, but on terms that use fantastical distortions--because it is not about health care for most of the protestors....that's just a convenient tool or backdrop for them.

    But, after reading Nate Silver today, I think Democrats need to focus more on the actual merits of reform.  People without health care....And, how other nations will continue to reap a competitive economic advantage because their industries do not have to pay exhorbitant health care costs....

    Parent

    Well (1.00 / 0) (#64)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 12:21:55 PM EST
    He HAS lied about other things, so would it be a far leap to say that maybe everything he's touting in this "plan" is everything he says it is? I don't mean "death panels', but are we really supposed to beleive what he's pushing out there is going to great?

    Parent
    If it is to the point where it is not (5.00 / 0) (#77)
    by MKS on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 12:34:31 PM EST
    in the bill and people say they still believe it will happen anyway, then the issue is not health care but Obama.....This is an opportunity to score points against Obama....

    Parent
    But, to do that, Obama (none / 0) (#63)
    by dk on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 12:21:49 PM EST
    and the Congressional Democratic leadership would have to concede that single payer, or a single payer-like system, used in all of those other countries would be the best way to eliminate the competitive economic advantage as well as offer healthcare to all people.  In other words, it would shine more light on why the current plans on the table are bad.

    Parent
    I believe France has a hybrid (none / 0) (#80)
    by MKS on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 12:36:31 PM EST
    of public and private insurance....I would like to hear more...

    Parent
    The Rich (none / 0) (#81)
    by squeaky on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 12:39:18 PM EST
    Can get whatever healthcare money can provide, and always will.

    If that is what you meant by hybrid, it is the case everywhere.

    Parent

    The French and the Dutch (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by MKS on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 12:56:21 PM EST
    appear to have better and less expensive health care in most respects than the U.S.

    Here is an interesting article on that.

    Parent

    Any doctors in the house? (none / 0) (#76)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 12:33:33 PM EST
    The American College of Surgeons is saying Obama isn't telling the truth too.  Are they some secret right-wing society that I don't know about?

    Statement from the American College of Surgeons Regarding
    Recent Comments from President Obama

    CHICAGO--The American College of Surgeons is deeply disturbed over the uninformed public comments President Obama continues to make about the high-quality care provided by surgeons in the United States. When the President makes statements that are incorrect or not based in fact, we think he does a disservice to the American people at a time when they want clear, understandable facts about health care reform. We want to set the record straight.

    Yesterday during a town hall meeting, President Obama got his facts completely wrong. He stated that a surgeon gets paid $50,000 for a leg amputation when, in fact, Medicare pays a surgeon between $740 and $1,140 for a leg amputation. This payment also includes the evaluation of the patient on the day of the operation plus patient follow-up care that is provided for 90 days after the operation. Private insurers pay some variation of the Medicare reimbursement for this service.

    Three weeks ago, the President suggested that a surgeon's decision to remove a child's tonsils is based on the desire to make a lot of money. That remark was ill-informed and dangerous, and we were dismayed by this characterization of the work surgeons do. Surgeons make decisions about recommending operations based on what's right for the patient.

    We agree with the President that the best thing for patients with diabetes is to manage the disease proactively to avoid the bad consequences that can occur, including blindness, stroke, and amputation. But as is the case for a person who has been treated for cancer and still needs to have a tumor removed, or a person who is in a terrible car crash and needs access to a trauma surgeon, there are times when even a perfectly managed diabetic patient needs a surgeon. The President's remarks are truly alarming and run the risk of damaging the all-important trust between surgeons and their patients.

    We assume that the President made these mistakes unintentionally, but we would urge him to have his facts correct before making another inflammatory and incorrect statement about surgeons and surgical care.

    About the American College of Surgeons
    The American College of Surgeons is a scientific and educational organization of surgeons that was founded in 1913 to raise the standards of surgical practice and to improve the care of the surgical patient. The College is dedicated to the ethical and competent practice of surgery. Its achievements have significantly influenced the course of scientific surgery in America and have established it as an important advocate for all surgical patients. The College has more than 74,000 members and is the largest organization of surgeons in the world.



    Parent
    lol (5.00 / 0) (#79)
    by squeaky on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 12:36:17 PM EST
    Looks like you really got Obama with this one. He should resign.

    Parent
    FWIW (5.00 / 4) (#94)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 01:44:12 PM EST
    This is the first time in my lifetime I have ever heard a Democratic president, or any leading Dem. politician, run around talking about cutting Medicare payments to providers and yapping about eliminating the "waste" in Medicare.

    The political environment has changed drastically over the years, Steve M, in case you haven't noticed.

    As a lifelong Democrat who has always followed politics pretty closely and stayed reasonably well informed on the issues of the day, I don't think Medicare benefits per se are going to be cut, but honest to God, given all the above, I'm not certain of it.  I'm even less certain that cutting provider payments and "eliminating waste" isn't going to significantly affect my ability to get good medical care under Medicare without wiping me out financially-- given that it wouldn't take very much to do that.

    It is an entirely rational and logical concern for me, and I'm an informed Democrat. I have no trouble whatsoever understanding the terror non-Democrats and not all that well informed people feel on the subject.

    Seniors (and those of us working our way towards being seniors) have not had to fear Medicare being damaged for, as you say, 45 years, even under GOP presidents, although the GOP Congress did have a little experiment along those lines.  I'm sorry to say there actually is a fully rational basis for being concerned about it now for the first time.

    If Obama et al don't get out there pretty darn quick and start explaining very specifically what they mean by "eliminating waste" in Medicare, not to mention why they could possibly imagine cutting provider reimbursement below even its currently untenable levels, the fear and opposition to health care reform among seniors and their families is not only going to increase, it's going to harden.

    Parent

    I understand your point (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Steve M on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 01:51:44 PM EST
    but do you believe the Republicans are trying to kill the bill because they want to save Medicare?

    Parent
    It's not "either/or" (5.00 / 4) (#100)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 01:58:21 PM EST
    By believing that what the Dems have put forth and argued thus far will be bad policy that will only hurt us in the long run, does not automatically mean we believe that Republicans are trying to save Medicare.

    Parent
    Of course not (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by MO Blue on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 02:07:34 PM EST
    and that does not negate the points in gyrfalcon's post.

    Parent
    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 02:09:19 PM EST
    I was responding to Steve M's point.

    Parent
    Funny, so was I (none / 0) (#108)
    by MO Blue on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 02:27:26 PM EST
    I was responding to Steve's question

    do you believe the Republicans are trying to kill the bill because they want to save Medicare?


    Parent
    Ah (none / 0) (#113)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 02:42:48 PM EST
    Need a bigger screen to get better nesting of comments

    Parent
    I did say, I believe (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 02:53:47 PM EST
    that I'm reasonably well informed, and strongly partisan.

    But you have serious tunnel vision if you think the only importance this has is which party gets more seats in the mid-term elections.

    Parent

    This is exactly how I feel. (5.00 / 4) (#107)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 02:27:10 PM EST
    I'm 100% certain that Republicans would screw us over if they got a chance to, and also I'm no longer quite as certain as I used to be that the Democrats won't.

    Parent
    consider this (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by CST on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 02:35:59 PM EST
    if Republicans are fighting it this hard, there must be something good in the bill.

    That's my silver lining.

    Parent

    But also consider (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by dk on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 02:38:16 PM EST
    that for-profit insurance and big pharma are supporting it.

    Parent
    No (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 02:56:52 PM EST
    not necessarily.  What they are doing seems to me is  simply trying to undermine Dems., and very specifically to pry those regular voting elders away from the Dem. Party.  They've been looking for a wedge to do that for a long time, and we've handed them one.

    Some screaming right-winger Republicans are ideologically opposed to anything that moderates their social Darwinist view of the world.  But most of them are doing this for nothing more -- nothing -- than partisan advantage.

    Parent

    Good point CST. (none / 0) (#112)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 02:42:06 PM EST
    But they'd fight anything at all, wouldn't they?

    Aargh.

    Parent

    Not necessarily (none / 0) (#122)
    by MO Blue on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 04:14:38 PM EST
    They are just bound and determined to put a check mark in the Obama fail column.

    Parent
    Clarity (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by christinep on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 02:30:55 PM EST
    One of the issues that I've been yammering about lately is the one that Gyrfalcon is so directly pinpointing. We need to clarify (as in CLARIFY) what the "cuts" in Medicare are all about.  As another life-long Democrat, I have to believe that fellow Democrats mean no harm to Medicare and that the intentions to trim "waste, fraud, and abuse" are noble aims. But...the increasingly expansive and vague talk about "cuts" has translation problems for a number of older adults who are not so definitely politically aligned as I have always been.  President Obama and the Congressional leadership need to clarify--repeat and repeat (in the classic other party style--what the cuts means for seniors and almost seniors. They must be precise and clear.  For example: It is my understanding that the cutting scalpel here is meant for Medicare Advantage (which, contrary to the belief of many adults, is not Medicare but a private insurance program separate from the government good-guy Medicare) which is marketed to unaware seniors in expensive brochures and rehab bedside chats as something other than what it is.  What is Medicare Advantage--that should be explained along with the purported costly supplements that would be targetted for a cut.  You see, the more that one delves into the associated Medicare cost structures, the more it is possible to appreciate President Obama's generalities about cuts there.  Unfortunately, the number or percentage of individuals who might be motivated enough to explore that dense forest or have the time to do so is undoubtedly very small.  So...we as Democrats have a problem that only enlarges if we play generational gotchas.  Lets use all our senses.  Voice & ears for clear, straightforward explanations with examples. Clear charts/graphs/pictorial displays for visual reinforcement of what is good and also of what is not so good (perhaps, Medicare Advantage and the fee structure.)  Etc.  Lets reinforce Medicare with statements of commitment, and clear examples of those few areas that represent "waste, fraud, and abuse."

    Parent
    Bravo, Christinep (none / 0) (#114)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 02:50:05 PM EST
    Agree completely, but you said it better than I did.

    Parent
    Medicare Advantage (none / 0) (#130)
    by sallywally on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 06:11:05 PM EST
    was instituted by my sister's public employees' retirement system in Michigan and by mine in Ohio.

    None of us (pub employees) have had the chance to respond to brochures.

    I'd love to see it cut, but why doesn't Obama just say that???? He has alluded to it in the past, but no clarity on what he supports now.

    After all, Medicare Advantage is a straight shot from my taxes to Aetna's profit margin.

    It's still hard to figure Obama's motives or what he will stand up for when it comes down to the final choices.

    I don't trust him. He's been a deliberate inkblot all along and after his reversals on FISA, the TARP bailouts, with Geithner and Summers and so so many more things, I think he stands for only what he's forced to stand for.

    His natural instincts are to go with the powerful and wealthy.

    Parent

    T (none / 0) (#41)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 12:05:50 PM EST
    I'm a centrist, and backroom deals with insurance comanies certainly isn't about being in the center!  This is right-wing stuff all the way....

    Parent
    You're (none / 0) (#119)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 03:47:11 PM EST
    right but we're talkign about the New Democratic party here led by Obama who talks like Bush when it comes to this kind of thing. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck etc....

    All they know is that the last person who talked like this was the same person that wanted to "privatize" social security.

    Parent

    Wow (5.00 / 0) (#120)
    by squeaky on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 04:01:43 PM EST
    Obama who talks like Bush when it comes to this kind of thing. [social security, Medicare]

    Take off the blinders, that is quite a distortion.  

    Bush continued, "Controlling spending also requires us to address the unsustainable growth of entitlement programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Spending for these programs is growing faster than inflation, faster than our economy, and faster than our ability to pay for it. Unless we act, we will saddle our children and grandchildren with tens of trillions of dollars of unfunded obligations. They will face three bad options: huge tax increases, huge budget deficits, or huge and immediate cuts in benefits. Republicans and Democrats need to come together to confront the challenge of entitlement spending and ensure that these vital programs are there when our children and grandchildren need them."

    "As he proposes $70 billion in cuts to these programs, President Bush will say that he is trying to address long-term financial problems in these programs,"

    raw story

    Democrats and Obama:

    "Democrats argue that while Bush says he's proposing cuts to entitlement programs to address long-term solvency problems, he is not dealing with the cause: spiraling health care costs."

    Obama is not the first incoming president to make bold declarations about overhauling the nation's retirement and health-care systems. Both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush made similar vows.

    [note the different approach]:

    "Social Security, we can solve," he [Obama] said, waving his left hand. "The big problem is Medicare, which is unsustainable. . . . We can't solve Medicare in isolation from the broader problems of the health-care system."

    WaPo

    Parent

    What (none / 0) (#121)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 04:11:42 PM EST
    you haven't heard Obama talk about "entitlement reform" and how medicare et.al. need to be reformed?

    Parent
    Yes (5.00 / 0) (#123)
    by squeaky on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 04:23:47 PM EST
    And so has Presidents Bill Clinton and GW Bush. The difference between the GOP and the Democrats is that the GOP wants to eliminate the entitlements and the Democrats want to make the entitlements secure and solvent, so that future generations do not lose benefits.

    The Bush plan was to slash $70 billion off the top. The democrats want to control healthcare spending which will pay for future funding of entitlement programs.

    Major fundamental difference in approach and 180 degree difference in long term goals for entitlements.

    Parent

    Obama (2.00 / 0) (#124)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 04:58:14 PM EST
    is not proposing making them secure and solvent. He's proposing cutting them just like the GOP always says they will. And he's pitting everybody against each other, young against old, with this just like Bush did with his attempt to privatize social security.

    Bill Clinton said that we should have used the surplus for social security. He stood up to the GOP when they wanted to cut Medicare and here we have Obama doing exactly what Newt and the GOP wanted in 1996. Tell me again why anyone should trust this guy? The selling point seems to be that he has a D by his name and that's it. You're basically splitting hairs with and the Dems are setting up the sytem for a huge failure.

    Parent

    Okaaay... (5.00 / 0) (#125)
    by squeaky on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 05:09:45 PM EST
    Please show me where Obama has said that he wants to eviscerate entitlements just like Bush.

    The majority of his advisors are from the Clinton Administration. Do you really think that they all were somehow all brainwashed by Bush? Or is it that Obama is a stealth republican that secretly meets with Cheney Rove and other wingnuts for secret late night meetings?

    Seems to me that you have had too much kool aid, no other explanation, imo.

    Parent

    Ga is the puma hold-out (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by jondee on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 05:18:22 PM EST
    champ here for "just like Bush" rferences.

    Funny, I always thought Obama was just like Hillary.

    Parent

    Now Now Jondee (5.00 / 0) (#127)
    by squeaky on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 05:30:12 PM EST
    No name calling. The correct way to describe these commenters is someone who voted for Hillary and vowed never to vote for Obama.

    It is more descriptive, and avoids insulting the animal namesake.

    Parent

    Well, that's certainly not true (none / 0) (#131)
    by sallywally on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 06:13:36 PM EST
    by a long shot!

    Parent
    You're (none / 0) (#136)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 06:42:39 PM EST
    acting like Palin now with the "eviserate" claim. I never made that claim. I claimed that Obama wants to cut medicare which is true. Newt Gingrich wanted to do the same thing.

    And as far as advisors go, well that's the same argument that Bush II had. It doesnt matter who the advisors are if you dont when to listen to them and when not to. No President has advisors that are 100% right all the time.

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#137)
    by squeaky on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 07:58:59 PM EST
    You are acting like Palin by saying that Obama and Bush are the same when it comes to Social Security and Medicare.

    Fearmongering 101.

    Parent

    Idealized southern white Democrat (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by jondee on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 05:30:45 PM EST
    also didnt inherit a multi-billion dollar war raging on two fronts and a near catastrophic economic downturn. Aside from those considerations, you're perfectly within your rights to make reckless, out-of-context comparisons.

    Parent
    Good grief. (1.00 / 0) (#135)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 06:40:14 PM EST
    You can continue to make excuses for Obama all you want but all that was KNOWN and if he didnt think he could handle the problems then he shouldnt have run for President. It was NO great secret that the country was in a bad way so I'm sorry but I wont use those excuses but you're certainly welcome too.

    Parent
    funny (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by CST on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 11:53:25 AM EST
    I always thought the "me-generation" were the baby boomers.

    Who are about to be on medicare.  FYI - the younger generation is anything but affluent right now.

    We don't have any benefits to lose.

    Parent

    The bottom line is that (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 11:53:38 AM EST
    tying this plan (whatever the plan ends up being) to eliminating Medicare "fraid and waste" was a loser to begin with.  People should stop blaming older Americans because the Democratic Congress and President created a political loser.

    Parent
    Hmmm (5.00 / 0) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 11:57:17 AM EST
    So if you eliminate the "waste and fraud" language (who knew seniors were big fans of 'fraud and waste'?), then you would be A-Ok with it?

    Parent
    But afraid of who? (none / 0) (#38)
    by Rashomon66 on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 12:05:00 PM EST
    Are you saying the elderly are afraid of Democrats and proposals by the Democrats? This makes little sense if their only other option is Republicans. The Republicans have been wanting to kill Social Security for years. And their fight against welfare in any form has been their rallying cry for years. Republicans opposed Medicare when it was first proposed. They said it was 'socialism'.
    So I am not sure what you are saying other than stop making fun of seniors? However, the article is not doing that. It is jut pointing out the irony that a good number of people with [government run] Medicare are opposing a government run health plan.

    Parent
    Benefits taken for granted (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Rashomon66 on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 11:56:24 AM EST
    Many people benefit from government programs yet seem to be completely unaware of [or oblivious to] the fact that they are. It's this very American  I-earned-every-dime-on-my-own and the-government-is-taking-my-liberty attitude that runs through many Republicans that is maddening. And they get worked up pretty easily by talk radio or within their own enclave and it makes them throw out any rational thoughts or arguments on the subject.
    I am pretty certain that if Medicaid is extended to millions of Americans a certain portion of those millions will still be anti-government and anti-welfare in principle even though they will benefit from the program in ways they never could from private [costly] insurance.

    I remeber a great episode of Michael Moore's (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by DFLer on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 12:12:32 PM EST
    old TV show, when he tried to rally "anti-government people" by urging them to leave Federal parks and lakes in protest....tried to block access to Federal highways as an "anti-government" protest etc....hilarious.

    Parent
    Yeah (none / 0) (#98)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 01:54:59 PM EST
    made you wonder how much of the land had been seized by the feds.

    Parent
    None (none / 0) (#106)
    by MKS on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 02:13:41 PM EST
    Unless you mean siezed from Native Americans....

    The federal land owned by the BLM was never in private hands with few exceptions....

    And, any land acquired was paid for according to its fair market value....

    But some will always want to dam the Grand Canyon....

    Parent

    W Coy (none / 0) (#138)
    by DFLer on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 09:35:06 PM EST
    Huh?

    seized by the feds or owned by the American people?

    Parent

    Pretty sure the remaining red states (none / 0) (#132)
    by sallywally on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 06:16:54 PM EST
    take a lot more funds from the Feds than they put in via taxes. Even if they're not on Medicare, they are much more "on the dole" than the rest of us.

    Parent
    My bad if that hyjaked the thread (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by SouthernFriedDem on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 12:14:06 PM EST

    I think the AARP coming out as pro health care shows that the elderly as group probably are not selfish socialist. Some have been lied to and told by people they trust that they are going to be sacrificed on the alter of progress and justice. People like dumb A$$ Sarah Palin, and Rush have tainted this debate. I might go yell at Arlen specter to if someone I trusted for accurate news told me the bill was taken dyslexics out of the ADA because it is to expensive to provdie us with support in school and society.

    starting to wonder if those panels (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 01:21:06 PM EST
    are such a bad idea


    Neither "generational pie fight" (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by KeysDan on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 02:50:40 PM EST
    nor labeling as selfish-socialism (I prefer Laffer-ism since it isn't as inflammatory on its face and is less likely to catch on) is constructive toward achieving health care/insurance extension and reform. Of course, enemies of government involvement in health care will attempt any and all tactics, including trying, at once, to deny that the good Medicare is a governmental program and blaming the bad Medicare for governmental death panel requirements.  The divisiveness serves opponents, not proponents. Moreover, concerns of seniors spills over to sons and daughters who now have their own economic confidence that their elders will have health care. Indeed, that was part of the attractiveness of Medicare at its inception. And, sadly to me, much of this could have been avoided by filling the chasm with straightforward explanations

    Is that health care reform (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by hookfan on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 03:40:18 PM EST
    or health care "reform"? Or is it now health insurance reform, or health insurance "reform"? Last I knew, and for a long time medicare for all has been off the table and in the trash. Do seniors as a whole oppose medicare for all? If so who's asked them? Or are they opposed to the confusing hodge podge "reform"? My, it's all so confusing. And it appears that even the Dems don't know what they are really proposing or talking about. How convenient and consistent it is for the sneering Dem intelligensia (those who have made such a clusterf*ck of communicating the hodge podge) to lay blame on those they have confused for not supporting. . . what exactly? Public option? What is that exactly? Or is it "public option" spoken very, very quietly to show its very, very, dimunutive size and force? No, no, no. . . wait I got it! Not "public option" (it may not even get to be in the bill), but Co-operatives! Which is what exactly? Who knows, but it is a nice sounding word! Hasn't been studied at all for what it does, costs, or viability. But what the hay. Must be supported 'cause its "reform", and if ya don't ya get to be called selfish by those so idiotic they didn't clarify what you're supposed to be supporting in the first place. With that degree of incompetence, who in their right mind would trust them not to f*ck it up so royally it wouldn't screw you if you support it? Even old and shriveled brained people know not to trust people who've done this bad of a job.

    Careful with that agreement BTD... (none / 0) (#5)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 11:43:45 AM EST
    I called the selfish-socialist brigade "spoiled brats" and caught a little grief over it the other day.

    Danger (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 11:52:31 AM EST
    is my middle name . . .

    Parent
    My man... (none / 0) (#15)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 11:54:38 AM EST
    when the pc police come for ya, I got your back:)

    Parent
    I got the chains (none / 0) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 11:55:40 AM EST
    on that enforcement team . . .

    Parent
    As long as they are... (none / 0) (#33)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 12:02:56 PM EST
    only proverbial...whip out real ones you ain't my man no more:)

    Parent
    Rhetorical (none / 0) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 12:04:05 PM EST
    Not proverbial.

    No real chains on me.

    Parent

    Great Point Teresa and a question for a lawyer (none / 0) (#36)
    by SouthernFriedDem on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 12:04:29 PM EST
    As a hack with a political communications and business degree I think Framing is a very important issue that is rarely examined outside of communication journals. The AARP have a great commercial I just saw that tries to answer a lot of the criticism that the elderly have of health care. It is an ambulance being driven by what must be a race car driver dodging cars trying to prevent it form reaching the hospital.The message being that the right is stopping threw lies and deceit what would ultimately be good for the elderly.

    Second question is for the owners and operators of TL. I Know most of you do not like the Federalization of crimes and issue, but is it legit to frame the right to health care under the theory of substantive due process. It would seem the Life and Liberty parts would apply. What is more important than having the liberty to preserve ones life threw medical access. For some reason this makes sense to me. If this is completely wrong please explain. Y'all are awesome!

    As I said the other day (none / 0) (#45)
    by The Last Whimzy on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 12:09:04 PM EST
    If given a choice between being perceived as stupid or being perceived as selfish -- most especially with respect to denying someone else medical care that you have -- one would rather be perceived as stupid.

    Now that we're talking about serious and important ... and difficult things... there is something that's been lingering in the back of my mind about the whole death panel hysteria.

    The thing is, triage, during a large catastrophe, emergency services is...   an ER itself once brought to capacity has to decide which patient can be saved and which patient can not.  I assume doctors are given some training in this regard.  And most people would agree if you can save 10 people in the time it takes to save 1 life, the chances being slim, that you have to make the right decision even if it means letting that one person die not doing everything you possibly could do to save that person.

    So my question is, and I hope people don't think I'm being obtuse.  Is there some resonance here with society at large?

    Are people just simply wrong to think of health care in selfish terms at all?  Is there anything to be gained by pointing out that society does not have to make the decision I've described above?

    And would people believe it?  Cause I think when you get right down to the nitty-gritty, when people are honest with themselves, at this most fundamental level, people don't.  And that's why we are losing this debate.


    Given the number of stories (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 01:59:25 PM EST
    out there in the news all the time about insurance companies denying funding for life-saving care to people who are ill, it does not strike me as entirely unreasonable that people would worry a government-funded system might do the same, especially when the president keeps running around giving examples of "wasteful" medical care he hopes to eliminate.

    Parent
    The Last Whimzy (none / 0) (#68)
    by SouthernFriedDem on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 12:25:38 PM EST
    I personally think that utilitarian cost benefit annalysys is unethical for the exact reason that you described. If we would invest our social capital, sorry to the Marxist in the crowd, both monetary and human towards social justice and not bs like killing innocent Iraqis and a bunch of other useless junk that we waste billions of dollars on we would have anofe medical staff and facilities where doctors would not be forced to make decisions like this. It is not hard to model the ammount of doctors and hospitals a city needs. A server with SQL on it and a few economist could figure it out in less than a month! Also I'm biased hear. I think utilitarian logic is intrinsically unethical and should be rejected.

    Please use the reply button (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 12:28:20 PM EST
    In addition, as you are a new user, please note you are limited to 4 comments a day for the first 2 weeks here.

    Thank you for joining our discussions at Talk Left.

    Parent

    Thanks for the heads up (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by SouthernFriedDem on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 12:41:30 PM EST
    My bad, and thank you for the site. I really enjoy it and plan on participating a lot in the future. Especially after my 2 week trial period. Any thoughts on the Due process question? It would seem to jive with the "health care as a human right" perspective, and may be a vehicle to overcome the fact that it is not in the "constitution". Originalist are sad sad sad people! Any thoughts?

    Parent
    WSWS on opposition to the Obama healthcare plan (none / 0) (#71)
    by Andreas on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 12:27:33 PM EST
    The WSWS yesterday wrote:

    The popular disaffection with the Obama healthcare plan goes much further, however, than the fanatical right-to-life constituency. The Obama administration has based its program for healthcare restructuring entirely on the argument that healthcare costs are bankrupting the US economy and that controlling and reducing these costs is essential.

    The logical conclusion of this policy--even if officially denied by the White House--is that somebody's healthcare is too expensive and must be cut back or eliminated. Millions of people fear that that somebody is likely to be them and their families. One opinion poll published last week showed that 53 percent believed they would be worse off or no better than before under the Obama plan.

    Obama and the congressional Democrats have sought to use the frenzied outpourings of his right-wing critics to discredit all opposition to the measures that the administration is pursuing to cut social benefit programs like Medicare and impose even greater burdens on American working people. ...

    Nothing that emerges from the machinations of big business politicians and corporate lobbyists in Washington can serve the needs of working people. Medical care must be made available to every American citizen and resident, provided for at state expense as a basic human right. This requires the nationalization of the insurance companies, the drug companies, and all the other healthcare profiteers, and the establishment of a system of socialized medicine provided free to all who need it.

    What is behind the opposition to the Obama healthcare plan?
    By Patrick Martin, 12 August 2009

    oddly enough, (none / 0) (#99)
    by cpinva on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 01:54:59 PM EST
    this is the same group that goes practically catatonic over sex on tv or in the movies, because of the potential adverse effects it might have "on the children!"

    hyprocisy knows no bounds.

    Palin Defeats End of Life Counseling Measure (none / 0) (#105)
    by squeaky on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 02:11:32 PM EST
    Looks like Palin was successful in getting the Democrats to remove counseling for end of life issues, from the Senate version of the Health Care Reform Bill.

    If passed people faced with anything from,  

    [making] living wills, making a close relative or a trusted friend your health care proxy, learning about hospice as an option for the terminally ill, and information about pain medications for people suffering chronic discomfort.

    will be forced to pay for their doctors opinion rather than have it covered.

    What a bunch of pansies. n/t. (none / 0) (#133)
    by sallywally on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 06:21:28 PM EST
    What a bunch of pansies. n/t. (none / 0) (#134)
    by sallywally on Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 06:21:42 PM EST