Profits Before Patients - A PBS Interview w/Bill Moyers

[Lastchance09]

Right Wing Lie Machine by Michelle Goldberg - An Article

An article on one of the websites I visit regularly. The author of the article tracks down the source of some of the myths we are hearing about health care reform. Particularly that Obama wants to kill old people. I plead with anyone opposing or having concerns about health care to read this article. It is one thing to oppose a bill using facts, it is another to straight out lie to your constituents to gin up outrage when we should be having a serious debate.


http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-08-04/the-right-wing-lie-machine/

 

[Lastchance09]

This is what happens when people don't have the facts. This is what happens when fear overrides common sense:

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/07/28/dem-effigy-afp/

 

[jordan]

An article on one of the websites I visit regularly. The author of the article tracks down the source of some of the myths we are hearing about health care reform. Particularly that Obama wants to kill old people. I plead with anyone opposing or having concerns about health care to read this article. It is one thing to oppose a bill using facts, it is another to straight out lie to your constituents to gin up outrage when we should be having a serious debate.


http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-08-04/the-right-wing-lie-machine/


This is what happens when people don't have the facts. This is what happens when fear overrides common sense:

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/07/28/dem-effigy-afp/

Earlier in this thread you railed against another member for getting her talking points from sources that might be a bit slanted (I’m putting it nicely). I think it is fair to point out that you’ve linked to an article by a left wing liberal and a liberal organization. Neither of these sources is going to give an unbiased view. You are spouting liberal talking points (I don't care if that is your personal belief as long as you are upfront when dismissing someone else's views). A fair discussion of facts should include all sides and the middle. I appreciate the different personal experiences that were shared in this thread and I’ve given thought to everyone’s input, but I will not base my opinion on any liberal or conservative agenda. I feel it is better to weed out the slant from both extremes.

In the end, the Democrats have the numbers to pass health care reform. The success or failure is in their yes vote. I hope I'm happy with the final bill. I know I would feel much better about the bill if the President and all the lawmakers were in line in front of me to be become recipients of whatever health coverage is included in the reform.

jordan

 

[pink_fortitude]

The author of the article tracks down the source of some of the myths we are hearing about health care reform. Particularly that Obama wants to kill old people.

Never have I heard ANYTHING like that. My DH is ultra conservative, listens to all the guys on talk radio, absolutely hates Obama and even he hasn't heard or thought up anything like this. Where did you hear it???

Melissa

 

[pink_fortitude]

I'm totally caught between a rock and hard place. On the one hand, I agree that health care needs an overhaul and that there should be more affordable care available. But on the other hand, I am HORRIFIED that the government is proposing to SOLVE the PROBLEM!! ACK!!!

What exactly have they done that is supposed to give me any confidence in their ability to create a realistic budget and stick to it? Are they known for being so cost-conscious, effecient, and effective? So unbiased and trustworthy? If we all agree that the current health care/insurance CEO's/evil business heads have been manipulating the government to protect the current cash flow, how is having the govenrment in charge of it going to make any difference? These are the same people who have allowed the situation to become what it is in the first place, and we're supposed to have faith that they are going to sell us magical solution. It's out of my ability to imagine.

It bothers me that they don't even know, themselves, what they're going to do, and yet they think I should 'buy in' and give them my support. If it hasn't been written, then how can they stand there and tell me how great it's going to be? How do they know? It feels like they're just dropping test balloons to see what we want to hear them say, instead of doing the hard work of actually FIXING the PROBLEM.

I guess that's what bothers me. It's a huge problem and one that affects EVERYONE, and we have a bunch of amateurs running around yammering about how great their solution is going to be. I'd like to think that an issue of this magnitude would be given a little more research and testing before we fling it at the masses.

Grace, I feel very similar. Something needs to be done, but heck, who can you trust? Honestly, I feel like I can't trust a single one of them... and all of these guys effect us and our families... What a horrible feeling...

ETA: After years of being an adult, especially after a trip to ER for DD's broken arm when her doc's office was closed ($$$!!!!) I now see how a profit driven health care system is a terrible, scary thing.

Melissa

 

[kathryn]

Never have I heard ANYTHING like that. My DH is ultra conservative, listens to all the guys on talk radio, absolutely hates Obama and even he hasn't heard or thought up anything ridiculous like this. Where did you hear it???

Melissa

On at least two occasions, when he was talking to citizens groups, Obama has fielded questions about the elderly being forced to meet with government-appointed counselors to talk about ways in which they want to die. I saw the footage on TV.

Here's some info on it (from what looks like an extreme right-wing, wingnut organzation.): http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=105525

I quote from the article (emphasis added):
"Nina May, founder of Renaissance Women, added to the arguments. She cited a 1948 Hitchcock movie about murder in which the victim's body is hidden in plain sight.
"The health care bill that Obama proposes has this theme at its core and has in its crosshairs the Baby Boomer engine that is pulling the derailed economy as it takes its final lap toward retirement.

In less than two years, Baby Boomers will begin retiring in multitudes, expecting to reclaim the hard earned money they have been paying into Social Security. But this Health Care Bill, HR3200, has other plans for them," she wrote.

"Those 65 and older will be required to undergo mandatory 'end of life' counseling to determine if they are worthy to continue to not only live, but take much needed resources from those who are younger and more worthy to receive them. Counselors will be trained to discuss how to end life sooner, how to decline nutrition and hydration, how to go into hospice, etc.," she said.

"This will not be done without coercion. For those who have amassed assets enough to take care of themselves in their old age will have these assets confiscated in the name of fiscal responsibility, because by this time, every citizen will be entered into a national database under the guise of improved efficiency. This database will be run by a type of 'star chamber,' appointed by the president, that will determine whether or not you deserve the much needed operation your personal doctor thinks you need," she said. "

Sounds like she's going from fiction to supposed 'fact' in the blink of an eye.

I guess some are bringing out the big guns (as is FEAR MONGERING) to fight health care reform tooth and nail.

 

[pink_fortitude]

Kathryn, thank you for providing that information. I have never heard anything like that, and I was actually floored when I read it. That is just... nuts! I can't imagine someone even being able to thin like that. I do wonder if this rumor was fueled by the fact that the elderly (65 and over) have last priority for the swine flu vaccine when they were a priority for flu shots in the past. That does seem a bit shady, especially when younger folks have stronger immune systems and don't get fatally sick like seniors do.

I have to read this bill to form my own opinions... but YIKES, it is long!!!

Melissa

 

[hiitdogs]

Never have I heard ANYTHING like that. My DH is ultra conservative, listens to all the guys on talk radio, absolutely hates Obama and even he hasn't heard or thought up anything like this. Where did you hear it???

Melissa

Congresswoman Virginia Foxx of North Carolina stated on the floor of the House of Representatives that in Obama's bill "old people will be put to death by their government"

The bill contains a provision that Medicare would be required to cover counseling sessions for end-of-life decisions every 5 years. According to the bill, 'such consultation shall include the following: An explanation by the practitioner of advance care planning, including key questions and considerations, important steps, and suggested people to talk to; an explanation by the practitioner of advance directives, including living wills and durable powers of attorney, and their uses; an explanation by the practitioner of the role and responsibilities of a health care proxy.

I don't understand what's so bad about that, people need to make informed decision and everybody should have a living will.

 

[pink_fortitude]

The bill contains a provision that Medicare would be required to cover counseling sessions for end-of-life decisions every 5 years. According to the bill, 'such consultation shall include the following: An explanation by the practitioner of advance care planning, including key questions and considerations, important steps, and suggested people to talk to; an explanation by the practitioner of advance directives, including living wills and durable powers of attorney, and their uses; an explanation by the practitioner of the role and responsibilities of a health care proxy.

Thank you for posting this! I can see where words were twisted and taken out of context, even removed and replaced in order to incite fear. I just don't get why someone would want to do that - I mean I do, but it is just sooooo wrong... But honest and politician just don't go together.

BTW, did have you read the bill??? You are a friggin' encyclopedia, so I figure if anyone has it would be you.

Melissa

 

[LauraMax]

Well, in all fairness I did hear an absolutely moronic Dem Congressman say something to the effect that "the loss of the life of an 85 year old isn't nearly as important as the loss of the life of a 17 year old" (paraphrasing here). That was def. fuel for the fire for opponents of reform, & I think that's where this myth about seniors being shelved came from.

But if you look at it politically, seniors are the strongest voting block in the country, esp. w/the aging baby boomer population, & the AARP is the strongest lobbying group. This bill will not pass if they're against it.

 

[BuffyR]

Kathryn, thank you for providing that information. I have never heard anything like that, and I was actually floored when I read it. That is just... nuts! I can't imagine someone even being able to thin like that. I do wonder if this rumor was fueled by the fact that the elderly (65 and over) have last priority for the swine flu vaccine when they were a priority for flu shots in the past. That does seem a bit shady, especially when younger folks have stronger immune systems and don't get fatally sick like seniors do.

I have to read this bill to form my own opinions... but YIKES, it is long!!!

Melissa

Actually, swine flu appears to kill more young people than old people unlike the regular flu.

 

[PhyllisG]

Let's not forget that seniors already have their govt sponsored health care---medicare. I would think that sitting down and speaking to your practitioner about end of life decisions would be a good thing. Something we should all do.

 

[wastewitch]

Wow, 6 pages already! But this has made for some good reading, so THANK YOU to the OP who posted the link to the Bill Moyers special. People are really fired up over this issue, but some of our leaders in Congress -on both sides of the aisle and issue-should be ashamed of what is coming out of their mouths. I have heard pundits as well as elected officials distill down a very complex issue to "Old people will be killed!" and "socialism!" and, one of my favorites, "a government plan will keep the private insurers honest." Huh? So private insurance is by definition dishonest now?

The other thing I don't like is that the issue posed is, "health care costs are rising," and the solution is to get 100% of Americans on insurance. The sticky thing here is that, even with insurance, somebody is still paying. You go in for an office visit and only have a $20 copay, but the visit cost $100. Who pays the difference? The insurance. Who pays the insurance? You do. Some people pay more based on their risk. So, I still don't see how getting everyone on insurance will do anything to control costs.

People need to have choice in health care. One way to control costs is for certain procedures to not be covered if they are not considered useful for a majority of the risk group. One recent example is prostate screening exams - a recent stat is that they are only helpful for diagnosing prostate cancer in about out of 6 men. So, a government (or regulated private) plan might not cover this procedure. Well, my Dad was the "1" in 6 and is cancer-free. Even if an insurance policy doesn't cover a procedure because it's not considered helpful for "most" people, if someone wants the procedure and can pay for it, the doctor needs to be able to provide it.

Another example is my in-laws. They are two of the un-insured, and my mother-in-law has cervical cancer. It's topical and manageable and she's treated regularly for it. My father-in-law is on a maintenance cholesterol medication. He is self-employed and is not covered by a group plan, but could be. He chooses not to pay monthly premiums, instead negotiating cash payment discounts with their providers. So, some of the uninsured are that way by choice.

OK, rant over. Just had to get that off my chest. Carry on, Cathletes!

 

[BigSal]

Way to go I am with you. The president wants to ram, yes, ram the health care down our throats. First of all quit calling it HEALTH CARE reform. We in the United States have some of the best doctors, nurses and hospitals in the world. No one is being denied health care. Secondly, why should someone go to school for a minimum of 8 years to become a doctor if not to make money. I don't know about you but that is the reason I work over 65 hours a week. Just who do you think is going to pay for this? Wake up and listen to someone other than stupid Bill Moyer. He is an idiot.

 

[PhyllisG]

I totally disagree with you. We have been talking about health care reform since Harry Truman! People are denied health care everyday in this country. Our health care system is a for profit one and I personally think that is wrong. We have medicare, social security, VA benefits, police and fire departments why not health care for everyone? People are bankrupted by medical bills and that includes those who thought they had sufficient coverage. Don't be mislead by all the lobbying being done by the health care industry to protect the status quo. They are spending over 1 million dollars a day to try and block this. All those congressmen who are so vehemently opposed are enjoying govt sponsored health care. Wouldn't you like to have the same benefits they have? I really fail to see how anyone can be satisfied with the current system. I just wanted to add that it wasn't Bill Moyers who was saying these things it was the corporate executive from I believe Cigna.

 

[LauraMax]

ITA Phyllis--there are millions of people in the US without health insurance, & while they may get health care in emergency rooms, being insured would encourage preventive care & therefore reduce health care costs. For ALL OF US.

And I would hope at least some docs don't go into the field only to make money--I hope some of them do it b/c they want to help people & make a difference.

Health care costs are rising. I posted a study a few weeks ago about how obesity cost this country $184 billion last year. Who do you think is paying for that? That said, I really wish there was funding in this bill that included incentives for people to live a more healthy lifestyle.

Incidentally, I think I've mentioned this before, with this bill if you already have health insurance you get to keep it. So how is this bill "ramming it down our throats?" If you already have insurance the effect on you would be nominal.

Finally, why does everyone keep mentioning how long the bill is? Most congressional legislation is that long, some is longer. That's why senators & representatives have such large staffs.

 

[Gayle]

No one is being denied health care.

But plenty of hardworking, tax paying Americans are going bankrupt getting it.

It's absolutely SHAMEFUL that people in this country can go into financial ruin simply because they get sick or injured.

THAT makes me sick to my stomach.

 

[dorothyrd]

Statement: we get to keep our health insurance we like, even with the government plan.

My thoughts: A good portion of us are on health plans our employers give us. Now sometimes these plans are not good, but in the case of medium size companies, and smaller ones the plans are usually the best the employer can find, because the owner is also on the plan. In the case of larger employers, it usually is not too bad as well, because when you have a larger pool to of people, you can get good coverage, cheaper. My own business had bad expensive insurance for a year because we were too small, until we got into a group of like companies nationally, and now are on really good insurance which we pay about 500.00 a month....in this day reasonable. I like one of the ideas thrown out about allowing small companies to bind together to get better insurance. That is essentially what our company has done because of our business, we could enroll in an organization that has nationwide coverage.


So I understand that the government will tax employers, and people with a 8% tax if they do not go with the government plan? Or am I getting that confused with something else? Help on this one, with FACTS, not gobblygook from either the right or left.

The one reason that I think that passing with this will result EVENTUALLY in government's total control is that employers will say, well heck, I will just pay the x% tax, instead of worrying about insurance companies and use government. Then the insurance companies will fail, go out of business and all that is left is government. So we will not have a choice.

Of course, there is the hope that the insurance companies will say HEY, make their plans better and more reasonable priced, so people will WANT them, and only use government in dire circumstances. Don't know.

I am also bothered that this bill which is very lengthy was trying to be pushed through and our lawmakers had not read it all. Whether it is stimulus, TARP, Health Care, I want these people making the decisions to read every single thing they are voting on, and discuss it rationally. It also should be publicized in its length so we can go out and really find out if what the obnoxious media is feeding us is true or not, and before it is passed or rejected, not after! We just do not need these sneaky little nickle and dime things in these bills, it needs to stop and has not. All Americans have been being cautious and tightening their belts, watching their nickle and dimes, government needs to as well, and I am just not seeing that.

As far as Cars for CLunkers, I actually like the idea, think it is a good way to get better fuel economy cars on the road. We are not shopping for a new vehicle until summer 2011. I hope the swing in the car market place will really have changed to alternative fuel vehicles by then, so there is a much better choice than I had last summer when I was forced to buy a new car because of an accident. I went with a Civic, which was a good choice, but felt GM really had nothing in the size car I wanted that could compete with Honda and Toyota.
The only thing I don't like about clunker program is that it seems wasteful to trash the old vehicles unless they are truly trash worthy.

 

[PhyllisG]

I want to add that it is actually the HMO's who are denying people health care by pulling out the fine print and referring to "pre existing conditions". I saw a woman testify under oath before congress that she had been denied surgery for breast cancer by her insurance because of a pre existing condition--acne! They claimed she had failed to divulge this and therefor had committed fraud. When asked by a congressman if they would voluntarily stop using this as a reason to deny coverage they all flat out refused.

 

[Lastchance09]

Wow, 6 pages already! But this has made for some good reading, so THANK YOU to the OP who posted the link to the Bill Moyers special. People are really fired up over this issue, but some of our leaders in Congress -on both sides of the aisle and issue-should be ashamed of what is coming out of their mouths. I have heard pundits as well as elected officials distill down a very complex issue to "Old people will be killed!" and "socialism!" and, one of my favorites, "a government plan will keep the private insurers honest." Huh? So private insurance is by definition dishonest now?

The other thing I don't like is that the issue posed is, "health care costs are rising," and the solution is to get 100% of Americans on insurance. The sticky thing here is that, even with insurance, somebody is still paying. You go in for an office visit and only have a $20 copay, but the visit cost $100. Who pays the difference? The insurance. Who pays the insurance? You do. Some people pay more based on their risk. So, I still don't see how getting everyone on insurance will do anything to control costs.

People need to have choice in health care. One way to control costs is for certain procedures to not be covered if they are not considered useful for a majority of the risk group. One recent example is prostate screening exams - a recent stat is that they are only helpful for diagnosing prostate cancer in about out of 6 men. So, a government (or regulated private) plan might not cover this procedure. Well, my Dad was the "1" in 6 and is cancer-free. Even if an insurance policy doesn't cover a procedure because it's not considered helpful for "most" people, if someone wants the procedure and can pay for it, the doctor needs to be able to provide it.

Another example is my in-laws. They are two of the un-insured, and my mother-in-law has cervical cancer. It's topical and manageable and she's treated regularly for it. My father-in-law is on a maintenance cholesterol medication. He is self-employed and is not covered by a group plan, but could be. He chooses not to pay monthly premiums, instead negotiating cash payment discounts with their providers. So, some of the uninsured are that way by choice.

OK, rant over. Just had to get that off my chest. Carry on, Cathletes!

When you hear about keeping private insurers honest it means preventing them from creating a monopoly or a duopoly where very few companies are covering the vast majority of Americans. With so little competition, these private companies have no incentive to provide better prices and better service. A lot of smaller insurance companies are being absorbed by much bigger ones - you just don't hear about it. And yes, private health insurers are dishonest. How do you drop someone from their policy because they failed to disclose that they were treated for acne? All that money paid into the policy and you get what?

To have 100% of Americans insured would be a single-payer system and the President has said it a million times since before he was elected that a single-payer system cannot get passed in this country. It will require a complete tear down of our current system. Not only are Americans not ready for that drastic change, it would not get passed an even more resistant to change group of people called Congress. As for saving money, look to Canada, look to Europe- The US GDP on health care? 17% Canada? 9.7%, France - 9.5%, Germany -10.7% - What's going on here? I think they know something we don't.

Source: http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml

And I'm sorry, but your in-laws do not represent the majority. Many people choose not to be insured because they can't afford the additional increase in their premiums. I was faced with that choice a couple of years ago. I used to work at a small company of about 16-18 people and every single year, my employer's cost of insuring us kept going up and he passed the cost on to us. Having already a small salary and paying to go to school, I seriously contemplated cutting off my insurance to save money. Millions of people have to make that decision everyday. But in the end I had to buckle and pay for it because if I should get into an accident one day and get complications that will run up hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills, it would bankrupt me. And I think that is something your in-laws should consider - they are living on the assumption that nothing will happen to them. Right now, I am unemployed and have no insurance. That's not a choice and I make up the vast majority of the 50 million people who are uninsured in this country.