Start Each Day With A Positive Outlook!
Posted by John B. Kalb - 8/11/09 @ 11:53 am - Filed Under Uncategorized
1. Open a new file on your computer
2. Name it “Barack Obama”
3. Send it to the Recycle bin
4. Empty the Recyle Bin
5. Your PC will ask, “Do you really want to get rid of “Barack Obama” ?
6 Firmly click, “YES”
7. Don’t You Feel Better ?
That’s good. Now tomorrow, add a file named ” Nancy Pelosi” and follow the same instructions from 2) through 6)
And the next day add one named Tim Pape and do trhe same
Next day add Senator Evan Bayh and do the same
Next day add Pat Bauer and do likewise
Next day add Senator Olympia Snowe and do the same
And on the seventh day, you will really feel much more positive!
Comments
70 Responses to “Start Each Day With A Positive Outlook!”
Leave a Reply
You’re easily entertained, aren’t you?
@John -
Nice to know you are making such constructive use of your time.
I’m sure you were more positive and content when we had “W”, Cheney, Rumsfield and Brownie running the show.
I have been very pleased with Barack’s first six months in office. He has unequivocally stated the US will no longer torture. He has recognized that science will play a major role in guiding our country into the 21st century. He has recognized that burning fossil fuels is not only harmful to our environment but a limited and finite means for providing the energy Americans’ need. He has restored a sense of dignity and respect to our country that eroded under Bush’s watch. He and his administration, did not hype, conjure up an unnecessary war (Iraq) based on fear and hysteria (smoking gun in the shape of a mushroom cloud) which cost our country currently over 1 TRILLION in dollars, not to mention thousands of lives.
Not sure if you ever get the chance to travel outside of our borders, but if you do, you would hear and notice how dramatically improved America’s image is now that Barack has been elected President.
The Obama administration is made up of some of the most able, competent and intelligent minds our country has. The Secretary of Energy, Steven Chu, is a brilliant man who understands the importance of making the US energy independent and at the same time preparing our country for life after oil. The US Secretary of Veterans Affairs, General Shinseki, is another individual who is widely respected and an expert in his field. If Rumsfield would have actually listened to Shinseki, some of the chaos that ensued after the fall of Baghdad would have been avoided.
But maybe that’s where one of the major differences lie between the Obama administration and that of George W. Bush’s. Barack seems to not feel threatened with surrounding himself with smart, able people. Who else would have been comfortable enough to nominate former adversary Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State ? Barack even had enough gumption and intelligence to ask Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates to stay on with his new administration. And, when asked what the difference was between George Bush and Barack Obama’s styles of leadership, Gates replied:
“I think that probably President Obama is somewhat more analytical. And he makes sure he hears from everybody in the room on an issue. And if they don’t speak up, he calls on them.”
I do feel we, as Americans, have a fundamental right to criticize, petition our government and express our views. However, what I am currently witnessing from a small, vocal, minority in our country (whom I and others refer to as the lunatic fringe) is something entirely different.
Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh certainly do their part to incite and create an environment of hysteria and fear for their followers.
Just recently Glenn Beck stated:
“This President, I think, has exposed himself as a guy over and over and over again, who has a deep seeded hatred for white people or white culture…”
I think the majority of rational, sane people would consider Beck’s comments to be over the top.
If you remember the Dixie Chicks received death threats for saying they were “embarrassed” to be from the same state as Bush a few years back. Their comments appear small fry compared to the one I quoted from Beck.
You know its getting even loopier when Barack Obama’s birth certificate becomes one of the top issues for his opposition to debate.
John, if I continually tuned in to FOX “news” and listened to Limbaugh’s radio show, I’d be depressed too. The negativity and venom will rot your mind if you’re not careful.
Andy- WELL SAID!
John: I am not a regular blog reader, but every time I read a posting or response from you, I become very discouraged and disappointed. Why? Because, you choose to be subjective, instead of objective and in the process you unnecessarily “tear down” and erode people. I taught school for several years, in a Catholic school and I always taught my students the importance of the “Golden Rule” ….Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. This is still applicable as we venture into adulthood and especially as we see certain diferences in one another (i.e. politics, religion). In fact,it is a key element in the Golden Rule to treat all members (not just your own) with consideration and respect. I remember reading in a past post, you were a Christian, a Catholic. Don’t you think, you can and should be a bit more considerate of your words and actions?
Ya, I heard Rush is back to shopping doctors for more codeine and Beck is back on the bottle.
@ Andy
you complained about the war costing over 1 TRILLION…
the new healthcare plan will cost more than that.
and had you taken the time to look around in the United States, you would see that America’s self-image has declined in the past 6 months.
Obama’s approval rating has dropped 10% on some issues within the past month, and on most issues at least 10% in the past three months.
If the Constitution states that only a US-born citizen can become president, and there are claims stating that a candidate is not a US-born citizen, then it is acceptable to analyze that to quell all doubts.
Obama surrounds himself with “smart, able people” (and some of them are, I will agree with that partially) because he himself does not have the experience to lead.
He has unequivocally stated the US will no longer torture.
He has recognized that science will play a major role in guiding our country into the 21st century.
“He has recognized that burning fossil fuels is not only harmful to our environment but a limited and finite means for providing the energy Americans’ need.” Every President since Ford has stated the same thing. The only question is will it happen and should the government artificially stimulate as it has in the past?
“He has restored a sense of dignity and respect to our country that eroded under Bush’s watch.” how has he done this? The deficit under Bush’s last term was over $1 Trillion. Obama’s is twice that this year. Is respect being bought?
“He and his administration, did not hype, conjure up an unnecessary war (Iraq) based on fear and hysteria (smoking gun in the shape of a mushroom cloud) which cost our country currently over 1 TRILLION in dollars, not to mention thousands of lives.” You think the war has cost $1 trillion? Do you have any facts to support this? I know the defense budget is high, but not a Trillion?
“The Secretary of Energy, Steven Chu, is a brilliant man who understands the importance of making the US energy independent and at the same time preparing our country for life after oil.” Then why is Chu supporting Nuclear power? Does he have some place to store the waste? Has he figured out to produce electricity from nuclear that is cheaper than natural gas or windmills? I like some of the things Chu has said, but I would not call the guy brillant.
Why did you not bring up healthcare, cash for clunkers and the latest bailout? How much more are you willing to give to Obama from you wallet for these?
Jesus fellas, lighten up, a little tongue in cheek ribbing is good for ya! Funny post John.
Well, I tried it with some different names- I named a file “John Kalb bitching about Harrison Square”. When I clicked “delete file” it said “do you really want to get rid of John Kalb bitching about Harrison Square?” I clicked yes. and the bitching was gone!
Then I put in “Tim Zank”. When it said, “do you really want to get rid of Tim Zank?” I clicked “yes” and he was gone.
I do feel better! ;)
See Kevin? Now you’re getting it! It’s not like none of us know where we stand politically is it?
Lighten up, life is short! And it’s gonna get shorter! Gubmint helfcare coming!
■Voters Have Already Spoken on August 11th, 2009 3:38 pm
I’m ok with that, just don’t give the Kennedy’s or Rick Sanchez back their keys. Course, they can let Chris Matthews drive now, he’s sobered up.
Rene - My only direct connection to Roman Catholism is that Martin Luther started out as a Roman Catholic monk and I am a Lutheran Christian. I do, on the other hand, have two of my children who are Christians and who worship at a Roman Catholic Parish. I also have three granddaughters, two of which attend Bishop Dwenger and the third is at St. Vincent de Paul grade school. My father taught for over 40 years in the Lutheran parochial school system.
This post was intended in jest, although I do have hopes that in future elections,each of these people will be replaced by persons who are more fiscally conservative!
And to Kevin, “a good belly laugh adds years to your life expectancy - so, Kevin, “To Your Good Health”. I know your response caused me to add some years.
Well, it always seemed there were far too numerous trite phrases used by so many about “change” but, it seems, they are all being proven true. This is what America voted for, and now it is being delivered, as promised. Imagine that. My hope is that you would offer alternative suggestions to policy matters being discussed. Reform will happen, so it is better if you’re apart of the solution. Deleting Democratic party members from your recycle bin is comical, and, yes, sad, but not hearing any sort of reform proposals from the other party other than “no” is equally comical, and, yes, sad.
Charles,
Advocating for “no change” on any issue is just as valid a position as advocating for change. On this particular issue, I think it is fair to say that most Americans feel there are serious issues with our current health-care system. But advocating for change, just for the sake of change, is no more valid than advocating against change for the same lack of an articulable reason.
Those advocating for change point to the fact that many people are overburdened by the cost of healthcare. But, in my opinion, their plan fails to adequately show how costs will be reduced or controlled. Rather, they propose to shift costs from one person to another and total costs may very likely see a major increase.
Granted, we currently do have a rationing system in place now, and the current system does bankrupt many individuals, but it does not threaten to bankrupt our entire economic system. On the other hand, it appears to me that the Democrats are trying to convince us that their plan will neither increase costs substantially or ration the allocation of healthcare. That is impossible.
The fundamental truth is this. Our current medical technology allows us the opportunity to provide far more life extending dservices than our economy can bear. This means that either we will have some type of rationing method or the entire system will go bankrupt (thus leading to extreme rationing.) People like Bill Larsen say the key is to continue allowing poor people to suffer from less healthcare than rich people, thus choosing a rationing option which keeps costs from going completely unchecked. As cold-hearted as this may sound, at least it is far more honest that what the oposition is proposing.
Thanks for the great advice. Kevin, I did the same thing, only slightly modified but yes It did feel good. I named my file said “Kalb and Marine $%^&# complaining about $%^&* everything”. Thanks for the suggestion John.
@ William Larsen -
First off, unlike you, I believe healthcare is a basic right for every American citizen. The US is a civilized, advanced country. Just as we provide a quality, basic education for ALL of our children regardless of race, income or social status, the same should be true for basic healthcare. Keep in mind, America’s public school system may not be perfect, but at least every child has an opportunity to attend school and receive an education. We are a better people and better country because of this. Please note, if a parent wants to pay privately, and enroll his or her child into a private school with more bells & whistles, he or she has the right to do so. This same option should be made available in our country’s health care system.
In my opinion, making sure all of our country’s citizens have access to basic, medical care should be a priority. Current estimates are that nearly 45 million Americans do not have healthcare coverage. Twenty, thirty years ago, it was a common practice for employers to provide health insurance coverage for their employees. Times have changed. The fact is, more and more employers are choosing not to offer health benefits to their employees. Cost obviously is the biggest factor, and unfortunately if an employer is faced with the prospect of keeping his or her doors open or providing employee health benefits, guess which one of these options takes a precedence ?
Obtaining health insurance privately is and continues to be, a costly endeavor for average Americans. With the costs of healthcare premiums spiraling upward, many American’s are left with the difficult choice of paying their rent, car payment, grocery bill, gas and electric bill and then coming up with $ 400-500 a month for health insurance (try paying all of these bills on just $8/hr). Keep in mind, if one is over 50 yrs of age, has a preexisting health condition ( history of migraines, high blood pressure, family member who had cancer, etc.) their health insurance premium will be even greater. Just ten years ago, people would have thought it crazy to have a $2500 health insurance deductible - not anymore, actually I know someone who has a $5000. That’s also not including dental or vision, because that would bump up the premium even higher.
What I currently see and hear at some of the town hall meetings and on neo-conservative TV/radio programs, is one of outright paranoia and hysteria. America has a problem with its healthcare system. In order to fix a problem, we first must acknowledge that it exists. For the people who do not want our country to have socialized medicine - I’m sorry to inform you, MEDICARE already exists in America. So please stop with the scare tactics of Nazi logos and references to “death panels” in America. The vast majority of seniors and people with disabilities who currently receive Medicare health coverage, believe their “socialized” medicine is sufficient and adequate.
http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2006Jul27/0,4670,MedicareDrugs,00.html
http://retiresafe.org/112008_seniors_satisfied_medicare_part_d.html
http://www.medindia.net/news/Elderly-Medicare-Beneficiaries-More-Satisfied-Than-Those-With-ESI-51365-1.htm
Years ago I made a decision that it was best to take a lower paying job that had better benefits. I would evaluate the after tax cost of each offer based on equivalent worth. In most cases those who had a higher 401K match, pension, lower out of pocket healthcare with higher deductible were better. As the laws change companies continually change benefits to provide the most pre-tax savings. This has resulted in many companies creating cadillac healthcare plans that are not subjected to federal income tax. As a conservative person you may find this unussual for me, but I believe all benefits should be included as taxable income. It is really no different from my stance on itemized deductions. A state with high income taxes get subsidized when those filers itemize and reduce their federal income tax liability. Those who buy a home get subsidized by others who rent. The list continues to grow.
This is the reason why tax rates continue to rise and politicians then provide tax relief, shifting the cost to others. In essance we are subsidizing each others pet wants.
Also -
I think it is important when looking at our country’s health care system, to take into account the problems facing our current private insurance options.
It is no secret, the private insurance industry has a track record of frequently denying American’s medical claims based on “questionable” reasons. For the majority of the Americans who thought their medical expenses would be covered under their existing health insurance plans, it is devastating to learn otherwise:
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=5257491&page=1
http://www.salem-news.com/articles/december302008/insurance_denied_12-30-08.php
http://www.madison.com/tct/news/stories/439019
http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/07/19/patient.insurance/index.html
Unfortunately, there are many, more stores like these, where people were denied medical coverage by their health insurance companies.
At the same time, health insurance CEOs’ continue to pull in astronomical salaries:
William McGuire - CEO United Health made $ 124.8 million dollars in 2005
http://www.forbes.com/static/pvp2005/LIRRI3M.html
Ronald A. Williams - CEO Aetna made $23 million dollars in 2007
H. Edward Hanway - CEO Cigna made $ 25 million dollars in 2007
What is wrong with this picture ? Is this the best our country can do ?
I applaud President Obama for tackling this issue. There clearly is a problem, and it needs to be fixed now.
The only thing wrong with the CEO of United Health making $124 million is that I’m not the CEO of United Health. That pesky supply and demand!
This thread has gone waaaay off the reservation, but I gotta address Andy’s comments. If you think health care is a right, you were obviously educated in the public school system sometime in the last 20-25 years, when our history was being re-written on a daily basis by the NEA. While I applaud your caring nature and eagerness to share your income to pay for neighbor Sam’s health care, and God knows what else, please leave the rest of us out of it.
Read The Bill Of Rights, PLEASE.
The exhorbitant cost of healthcare can be directly related to government intervention, regulation (can’t be sold across state lines), interference, and of course lawyers.
What frightens people the most is the concept of taking a complex and expensive but fixable system that is currently working for 70% of the populace and throwing it completely out the fricking window to “help” the other 30%.
That is asinine.
Rant over, you can go back to beating up John now for being humorous.
Why can’t we all be friends. Lets all stand together and take another drink of the Obama Kool aid and praise the arrogant elite-list who has never held a real job, lead us to the socialist promise land.
Let him continue to pay off the unions and appoint “czars” (28 at this time) that can ignore the constitution and run rut shod over private businesses. The deficit continues to grow and unemployment is at a all time high.
Let him turn the health care system into the next postal system.
Why because he has garned respect. Yea right..The China and the Indian Government told him to take his green initiative and shove it.
He ran off to Europe after signing the biggest pork bill in history that will leave my grand children in debt for generations. Wait a minute, we’re talking about Europe, who has done more for ethic cleaning in the last 200 years than Billy Mays did for oxiclean
The French told him to stay out of European affairs, The Germans told him they will run their economy as they saw fit and the Russians told him that they will do what they pleased with their former satellites.The guy came back with his tail between his legs.
When he got home he was met by the Iranians laughing at him, agreeing to unilateral talks with that wacko from North Korea and pissing off our only ally in the middle east
oh that’s right he stopped having the CIA giving the man responsible for the deaths of 3000 citizens of the United States the torture equivalent of toilet swirly. Grow up!!
Yes, get held care under control by first cracking down on fraud and abuse in Medicaid and Medicare. Get true tort reform.
Andy:
Hold up there Tex, you are obviously just filled to the brim with roiling disenfranchised angst at the current Health Care system. That was a WHOPPER of a post…
Good new is, if you follow the standard Washington model & add about a thousand more pages folks will flock to your banner or argue with you vehemently based on their own opinions without actually ever reading the post!
The public is well on its way to cheating itself out of yet another chance at meaningful discussion resulting in real solutions by becoming pawns to their (insert political affiliation here).
The end result being that those in leadership on both sides of the political spectrum broker a deal that benefits the goals of the effete Washington power brokers and others wielding vast monetary support engines on both sides of the isle all whilst those in the proletariat are kept completely distracted and on the sidelines by their loyalty based and largely useless partisan hen pecking!
Seriously, someone could include references to 10,000 web sites &/or provide perfect solutions to the health care issue or any other of the HUGE problems our County faces, yet if they were Conservative & Reaganesque in any way those of a more liberal dare I say Democrat bent would feel it UN-HOLY to agree if only due to their devotion to ideological affiliations laid out by their Party.
Maybe one day folks will realize they are being rendered inert by partisanship and instead focus on providing guidance to those in Government so they can create plans inclusive of ideas palatable for Americans as a whole.
Americans need to snap out of their usual approach and actively engage in negotiating IMPROVEMENTS to proposed legislation.
We cannot allow ourselves to continue falling for the old bait & switch employed ever so effectively by Washington power brokers.
Ok, so I should be handing out marshmallows and preparing to sing Kumbaya next to the camp fire! Anyone want chocolate & graham crackers too??
You have all been spared my proposed improvements to the Health Care Bill @ least until I feel moved by the muse to post again because I’m getting yelled @ to wrap this up so the family can go out for dinner…
@Phil Pease-
You’re right - that was a whopper of a post. Sorry to take up so much space. Sometimes I have a tendency to go into a wee too much detail…
@ Tim Zank -
Thanks for the reference to the Bill of Rights. As you are aware, there is no reference to providing public education for our children in these basic rights, but yet the American public school system exists to ensure every child has the opportunity to receive a quality education. I feel providing basic, medical coverage to every American citizen should also be just as important. The same is true for police protection. What if every American citizen had to pay an extra fee to have access to 911 emergency services? Would people pay the extra fee, or would just the people with the sufficient financial means be the ones who would have access to receive help/assistance?
Not to belabor the point, but as a developed, advanced country, we should in the very least, provide basic medical care to all of our citizens.
Who knows - you may be the next one to lose your job, have your medical coverage dropped, and come down with an illness that requires immediate medical attention. This is a scenario I would not wish anyone to endure.
Andy, it’s a generational thing. I grew up not wanting,asking, or expecting anyones help, especially the governments. When things were bad (which they were many times) I relied on my family, friends, hard work and my wits.
You’ve grown up during a time where it’s perfectly acceptable (if not expected) to turn to the goverment for everything from cheese to tuition. When things go bad today, there is always someone to blame and some agency you can call. The last couple of generations have had a larger and larger safety net which has produced an enormous population of weak and whiny people that expect everything handed to them because it’s a “right”.
I find that rather sad.
What Tim said…
@ Tim:
Spot on & quite accurate… Maybe you can apply for a Federal Stimulus Grant to study the socio-economic impacts of this situation.
@ Andy:
I’m a strong proponent of free enterprise & the closer our Government flirts with the spread-the-wealth mentality there is a proportional reduction in the catalyst for individuals to excel, innovate, and strive for success.
We need to strike a balance between where the Government leaves off and Civic oriented efforts sponsored by caring citizenry takes over.
If one takes your logic to its true ends where then would be the motivation in our society.
Does not EVERY person feel they deserve a roof, basic clothing, 3 square meals daily, medical care as needed, etc…
The trick is to find a balance that keeps any specific philosophy/ideal from becoming so dominant that its negative characteristics are left un-checked.
Americans are inherently innovative & I’m not particularly thrilled @ the prospect of forcing them to accept the idea that they no longer need the ability to excel through hard work because the Government will provide for all their needs if they have their papers in order and wait long enough in the bread, vehicle, doctor, clothing, and housing lines.
@ Tim
You’re right, it is a generational thing — each generation feels following generations are problematic, different, or wrong. For example, we’re all familiar with the traditional saying, “Well, when I was growing up….” The truth is, we like to eulogize about ourselves and the generation we come from.
Tim, I will credit you, things are definitely different compared to your generation. We now live in a more global, competitive environment. If you do not have a modern day education and keep up to date with technological advances — you are out to dry — despite, if you’re a hard worker. I have a great example… my mother.
She has worked the past 30 years at a northeast Indiana RV company. During that time, she supported my brother and I as a single mother without any governmental assistance and put me through college. After 30 years of hard work, she is out of work and without medical coverage. Quite frankly, she can’t afford it. So, she prays she stays healthy, gives plasma 3x/week for income and hopes to God she never becomes a victim of circumstance and lose everything she owns due to not having medical coverage.
@Phil Pease -
You said:
“The trick is to find a balance that keeps any specific philosophy/ideal from becoming so dominant that its negative characteristics are left un-checked.”
I couldn’t agree more.
I too believe in free-market enterprise. But when certain aspects of free-market border dangerously close to exploitation, and greed appears to supersede patient care, then an opportunity for change is in order. Healthcare costs continue to go up, average American workers wages continue to go down. Health insurance CEO’s are raking in outrageous salaries, while patients’ medical claims are being denied. Even the late Christopher Reeve had to do battle with his health insurance company in order to receive the proper medical care he needed.
There is no doubt - healthcare in America is BIG MONEY.
Even in our own backyard, Parkview North is currently “adding on” a half a Billion dollar expansion.
Don’t think that just because I believe the US should offer basic medical care for all of its citizens, I endorse or advocate for an all-out welfare state. Again, as you say, the word is balance. And countries such as Australia, Germany, UK, Finland, France, Greece, New Zealand, Denmark, Spain, Sweden, Israel, Brazil, Canada, and Norway all offer some form of universal health care for their citizens.
Its safe to say these are not communist countries, who employ death panels, and have a secret plan to pull the plug on their elderly and disabled.
Yes, Americans have an innovative and strong spirit about them, but when it comes to providing affordable, accessible healthcare for all of its citizens, we lag behind the majority of other developed nations.
First they proscribed health care, then they took away my Big Mac and now I can’t drink Coke anymore. I have not yet begun to fight. The junk food is mine, all mine (but, no smoking around me please). On another note—just rhetorically of course, which Nation does most of the Medical Research and Development in the world, not that it matters, or maybe it does, I don’t know?
@ Andy
Amen, Brother!
Jim
I love the no smoking around me paranthetical. So what you’re saying is, you want rights to be protected as long as they’re rights you ike? Okay, I got it, the Pruitt Principle.
Yes. My rights are very important to me and nobody else matters.
“Countries such as Australia, Germany, UK, Finland, France, Greece, New Zealand, Denmark, Spain, Sweden, Israel, Brazil, Canada, and Norway all offer some form of universal health care for their citizens.”
What do all these countries have in common? They are all having monetary problems paying for their universal healthcare. Taiwan is borrowing 25% of their healthcare budget to make ends meet. How long can you borrow before no one will lend you more?
Germany recently had a national strike by all healthcare workers demanding more money. Don’t forget that staying up with the Jones’s is not always economically good. Just because you see everyone else buying homes, does not mean they are a great investment. Just because the US had subprime loans, did not mean it was good for the rest of the world to follow suit.
There is a totally different ratio of equipment and doctors to patients in the US versus these countries. It comes down to utilization. If you buy a MRI machine and use it one time, the cost is tremendous. On the other hand if you have fewer machines and a constant back log of patients waiting to use it (peaks and valleys) the cost comes way down. In the US the ratio of technology to 1 million patients exceeds four times that of those countries identified above.
One could sum it up this way. In the US the healthcare system is made to wait on you. In these other countries their healthcare system is where the patient waits on them. To reduce technology costs, you need a higher utilization rate.
What we need is to be able to transport people to a central location for healthcare instantaneous so that we do not have over capacity in every single city. Hey, where are Doctor McCoy and Kirk when you need them.
@ William Larsen-
Was the US “staying up with the Jones’s” when we made it a RIGHT for women to vote in 1920 ?
When the fact is, women in New Zealand, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Norway, and Australia all had the right to vote long before women in the US did.
What about slavery ? Was the US keeping up with the Jones’s when it abolished slavery, or did we also lag behind other countries who had stepped up to the plate regarding this ? Hint: dozens of countries around the world abolished slavery years before the US finally did.
In regards to comparing the current healthcare system in the US to a number of the countries who offer some kind of universal healthcare plan for their citizens, this report might shed some light on where our models of healthcare differ:
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/Publications/Fund-Reports/2007/May/Mirror–Mirror-on-the-Wall–An-International-Update-on-the-Comparative-Performance-of-American-Healt.aspx
From the Commonwealth Fund report:
“Despite having the most costly health system in the world, the United States consistently underperforms on most dimensions of performance, relative to other countries.”
” Compared with five other nations — Australia, Canada, Germany, New Zealand, the United Kingdom—the U.S. health care system ranks last or next-to-last on five dimensions of a high performance health system: quality, access, efficiency, equity, and healthy lives.”
Case in point, when Rush Limbaugh states “the US has the greatest healthcare system in the world” he’s not being honest with you. The facts state otherwise.
Again, I applaud Barack for tackling this issue. Clinton tried, and Bush wouldn’t touch it with a 10 ft pole.
Jim
How is that different than anyone else? Obama’s rights are very important to him and no one else matters. That’s why we are in the mess we are in. What a terrible philosophy.
Keith, indeed…
Andy….grow up. You’re tilting at windwmills.
@ Andy
You complain about health care costs but what you haven’t brought up is what cutting costs will do wages or jobs in the health care field.
I don’t know what you do for a living but are you prepared to be told what you can make at your job because someone thinks the service/product you provide costs too much?
Just remember, there’s two sides to every story.
JohnG……Now don’t go bringin’ common sense and action=reaction into it….That takes all the “emotion” and feelgood out of it. Dollars and sense are soooooo passe’……It’s all about making everyone “feel” good….damn the costs…we gotta help our brethren, right???????
I just asked my neighbor to make his two year old stop eating paint off my deck…
gosh… if only the government had been involved we could have had three inspectors, 2 enforcement and 1 healthcare official (collectively about $350k a year) to stop this heinous activity.
Instead of calling the property authorities we took it upon ourselves to teach him NOT to suck on the posts of the deck…
We will be cited I’m sure.
My bad Tim. Won’t happen again.
ANDY WROTE
…Was the US “staying up with the Jones’s” when we made it a RIGHT for women to vote in 1920 ?
…What about slavery ?
What you have identified are rights. Healthcare is not a right. Healthcare would be an entitlement paid for by taxpayers. Keep in mind when rating countries, what is important to one may not be important to another. For example infant mortality is generally a large factor on rating. In the US we have poor diets and drugs. Life span is also a factor. In the US we have a higher rate of deaths due to guns, automobiles, etc.
As for being costly, the single largest cost to the US system is Medicare and Medicaid. Both reimburse providers a fraction of the true cost which then gets shifted to everyone else. When you have a large elephant on the end of a teeter tauter, you have to have a large counter balance to offset it. Otherwise when the elephant moves, it tramples everything in its path.
@William Larsen -
You think healthcare is not a right. I believe it is. The majority of the civilized world also believes healthcare to be a right.
@John G. -
Yes, there are two sides to every story. Some on one side of healthcare debate hold up signs with Nazi swastikas painted on them and talk of communist death panels. The other side of the equation, features many Americans who just want to be able to afford quality medical care and not have to live in fear of being denied coverage if they happen to come down with an illness.
FACT: the US has “the most costly health system in the world”.
Why is this so ? Where is all the money going to ??
Think about it. Health Insurance provider Aetna accumulated nearly $ 2 Billion in profits in 2007. One man, William McGuire, CEO of United Health, earned $124 million in just one year. I think its safe to say, you and I wouldn’t even make anywhere close to that in multiple lifetimes. Our boy William did it in just ONE YEAR.
If you’d ask the average bloke on the street how much money some of the these health insurance companies and their CEO’s were pulling in, they would have no idea.
Its no wonder there’s a real possibility the majority of us are not going to be able to afford quality healthcare in the next 25 years.
I guess we should get use to seeing more “clinics” like the one recently held in Inglewood, CA:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/08/13/eveningnews/main5240824.shtml
Private enterprise is fine and dandy for the majority of goods and services we purchase in the US.
Healthcare - not so much.
@Tim Zank -
I use a woman’s right to vote as an example, not only because I think access to basic healthcare should also be a “right” for everyone in this country, but because there are some interesting similarities between the two.
The way of progress usually is not an easy one. History shows us that all too often it is riddled with all sorts of untruths, misrepresentations, and unjustified accusations. Many times even violence.
Death panels, pulling the plug on grandma, Nazi comparisons, etc. in my opinion all fall into this category.
What I find interesting is a woman’s right to vote seems like a no-brainer to me. Why did it take so long for our country to allow women to vote ? Hindsight is always 20/20, but in the heat of the battle on whether or not to “award” women the right to vote in this country, a vicious and nasty debate ensued. Women had been deemed not worthy of this right for nearly 150 years after our country was founded, and it wasn‘t just going to be handed over to them.
The same is true for healthcare. Many of the greatest battles which have occurred in this country have not come easy (abolishing slavery, Civil Rights Act, desegregation, etc.).
I believe the right for all US citizens to have access to basic medical care also falls into this category.
I have been watching this exchange of responses, but unfortunately, have not heard any solutions being offered for the 45 million uninsured Americans. It is very easy to sit back and oppose, but we, as Americans, are at our best when we work together to solve a problem. Whether we like to admit or not, there is a problem.
Again, my mother, a hardworker of 30+ years is unemployed and without health coverage. Health covereage is WAY too much and she doesn’t qualify for Medicaid or Medicare. What should she do? She’s a woman that has always been financially and socially responsible, but like many others is an unfortunate victim of circumstance. She is willing to pay for health coverage, but just can’t afford the huge EXORBITANT cost. For those that vehemently OPPOSE a health plan, what is your SOLUTION?
Andy “What I find interesting is a woman’s right to vote seems like a no-brainer to me. Why did it take so long for our country to allow women to vote?…I believe the right for all US citizens to have access to basic medical care also falls into this category.”
Now it comes down to what is a right? A right is something that all have that does not extol a toll on someone else. Can Healthcare be deemed a right, no? It cannot be deemed a right because it extols a toll on someone else. It requires a sacrifice by someone else to provide this. A right extols nothing from anyone. Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the right to assemble, freedom of religion and the right to redress grievances of the government, these extend to all without a toll. These are quite different from Healthcare.
One of the most difficult decisions to make when a Ponzi scheme collapses is who is responsible and what can be done. In the case of Bernie Madoff who took $50 billion from investors, they lost their money. They put faith in Bernie to do the right thing. This is actually no different than Medicare today. Millions of workers paid into Medicare with the expectation that when they reached 65, they too would receive the same benefits. True be told, the money paid into Medicare was paid right back out, never invested on behalf of the contributor to pay future costs, but used instead to pay current beneficiaries costs.
Those who are unemployed have paid Medicare taxes during their working periods. How much have you invested in Medicare and yet not received any benefit? As a person still under 65, the only thing I have seen is cost shifting by providers to me because Medicare reimbursement rates are under 70% and they need to recoup the cost of doing business, otherwise they lay off staff or close shop completely. The choice to choose what you do with your money is removed from you through government taxes.
Politicians deemed Medicare a good thing resulting in lower disposable income to workers. Politicians decided what was important not you. Politicians decided it more important to take 2.9% from you to pay for Medicare. This 2.9% is not available to you to provide for your family’s healthcare. In addition Medicare shifts costs. For a real provider’s cost of $1.43, Medicare will reimburse $1. This means they shift 43% of the actual cost that Medicare won’t pay to those under 65. This is similar to leveraging or margin. Medicare’s budget is over $450 billion. This means that the worker does not pay 2.9% towards Medicare but over 4% of wages. The average wage is $38K. The result is each worker is contributing $1,574 to Medicare yearly before paying for their own Healthcare. In simple terms, your own Healthcare is less important than Medicare beneficiaries. In addition you are competing with Medicare for services (supply and demand). If you reduce demand and supply remains constant, costs drop.
Where would this discussion be had Medicare not been created? Clearly workers would have more disposable income. Doctors would be charging less. Seniors would be responsible for their own Healthcare. There would be fewer Healthcare related jobs due to a much lower investment in Healthcare based on profit motives (if people cannot afford your product, they do not buy it).
In essence we have leveraged our Healthcare system to the hilt. We bought on margin thinking the rise would never cease. It is no different than the housing bubble, banking bubble except now government appears to want to intervene.
Bill - AMEN
Andy “Health Insurance provider Aetna accumulated nearly $ 2 Billion in profits in 2007.”
$2 Billion in one year, wow. Divide this by 310 million people and you get just of $6 each. $6!!! You think $6 is going to make healthcare more affordable? Take Zimmer that higher over 6500 people. It sells $4 billion in goods and services and has a profit of nearly $1 billion! Why did Zimmer, Biomet and Medtronic’s get into medical implants, money? They did it because someone decided there was a market for knees, hips, spinal implants and more. It is no different than the two neighborhood kids who this last summer went around pulling a wagon with a snow cone machine, ice, syrup, straws and cups. They bought the ice, syrup, straws and cups all on speculation that they could sell snow cones. They made $18 after their initial investment of $6. They looked at the market, environment: hot, lots of kids between ages 4 and 15, with spare changed lying around. Is this wrong?
Ford began when it developed a process to build one style of car at a low price. It competed with the horse and buggy that had to be fed, sheltered, muck the barn and could only travel x miles per day. If people did not see any value in the automobile, then why do we have cars today? Someone made an investment risked their capital to provide something to people. They created jobs and paid people to perform work. They competed on the open market for labor. Why work for company x and company y pays more. The market pretty much fixes the price people are willing to work for and pay to purchase items. Now look at GM and Chrysler. They gave too much away in negotiations and labor has now been reduced
Is Healthcare any different? Why do people build hospitals, money? Why does a person become a nurse, money? Why does a person become a doctor, money? Why does a person become an engineer, money? Why does a person become an accountant, money? Who would spend $80K to study engineering, leave the work force for four years to become and engineer to make the same as a person at a fast food chain? Anyone who invests in education to better themselves does it mostly to earn more money. Look at the statistics on who earns a college degree?
The difference between private and government investment is money, risk and return. No person would risk their own capital if they could not make money or if it was a sure looser. Without Medicare would we have the pharmaceutical, technology and procedures today? Medicare collected revenues and told Healthcare providers, if you build it we will buy it. The rest of the world has had national healthcare for decades and who has the best technology? Which country holds the largest number of patents?
Government has no money, except that which it extols from taxpayers. It is not in the business of making a profit. Without this mentality, it makes poor economic decisions. Look at Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, FDIC, Federal Pension Guaranty Program, TARP, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, United Postal System and the list is longer. In the private world there are checks and balances. If you make bad decisions, you go under. What happens when the government makes a bad decision, taxes go up, disposable income drops?
The Healthcare Industry has grown to $2.6 Trillion a year. How on earth did it get this large? It is an elephant in a china shop. The objective is noble, reduce cost and expand coverage. How do you expand coverage without adding cost? Medicare admits 1/3 of its budget is from fraud and another 2% is administrative costs. Maybe they need to spend more on administering the program to reduce fraud. Expanding coverage without cost means something has to give. Someone must take a wage concession. Since you think $2 Billion is a lot of money let us put it in percent terms. $2 Billion is 0.077% of healthcare spending. Where do you think costs should be reduced to expand coverage? How much should doctors make? How much should a nurse make? How much should engineers who develop the technology (MRI, CT, X-ray, software, implants, drugs) be paid? Maybe those who build medical complexes should be paid less. My guess is that if you take the entire $2.6 Trillion spent on healthcare, profit amounts to less than 15% or $390 Billion of which state and Federal governments take at least 1/3. Keep in mind the profits are what fuels 401K, IRA and savings. Assuming there are 50 million uninsured people out of 310 million yields 16%. So a back of the envelope calculation yields by reducing profits to zero, you still cannot cover everyone.
Are you going to stay working in the healthcare industry if your wage and benefits are cut and the potential of raises low? Engineers will flock to other industries and innovation will slow. Those who would have gone into Nursing will choose other fields. Doctors who might have become specialists would choose the lower paying profession of general practitioner increasing supply. When Government gets involved it disrupts or artificially stimulates the economy. What happens when the artificial stimulant can no longer be afforded, it is called reform.
Andy is from the generation that believes they have a “right” to have their collective asses wiped. You will not change his opinion with something as paltry as history or facts. They have a God Given right to allow me to support their ass.
They have been brainwashed beyond repair. He thinks it’s a right…you can’t change that…it’s too late…
@ Andy
An individuals rights end where they infringe on another individuals rights. Period.
@ Rene
I’m sorry to hear of you mother’s situation but I don’t see the answer being others should be made to subsidize her health insurance premiums.
The cold hard truth is this: Over a 30 year career she chose not to save enough money for the basics in life in the eventuality that she became unemployed or retired. She’s not alone. I don’t judge her for the choices she’s made. I also don’t expect to be billed for the choices she’s made.
@ Whoever the hell is still reading this post
Many people spend without a second thought to what the future may hold. These same people seem to have the mentality that if they ever get in a jam it’s the “governments” responsibility to bail them out. Well the “government” can’t bail anyone out because they have no money. It’s the TAXPAYERS money!
I say people like this have made their bed and should be forced to lay in it.
I expect to get hammered for this post, so by all means, show me the error in my ways.
John G. on August 15th, 2009 11:45 pm
“I expect to get hammered for this post, so by all means, show me the error in my ways.”
Well I am standing not behind you, but right beside you. Some call me cold blooded, but the reality is I agree with 100% of what you wrote.
@Tim Zank –
Thank you very much, but I am totally capable of “wiping” my own ass. Now, if and when I live to be the ripe old age of 90, then I may need some help.
We can trade barbs back and forth on how our generations differ. I would have preferred if generations before me had preserved and left me with a planet in a far better condition, but instead, I inherited polluted rivers, toxic waste dumps, and an island of plastic trash the size of the state of Texas floating around in the Pacific Ocean. The fact is, its up to my generation to clean up the mess that has been made over the past several decades.
@William Larsen –
You have succeeded in posting a bigger “whopper” of a post than I. Phil Pease would be proud.
I do understand both “sides” of this debate are well entrenched. Old habits die hard, but I do believe we all share a common interest here: quality, affordable healthcare.
That’s the issue at hand, isn’t it ?
If someone’s mother, father, sister, or grandmother was ill and came down with cancer, wouldn’t you want him or her to have a chance to get well ? Or would you tell them tough luck, its their own fault, and they should have planned better ?
As much as I am tempted to add additional comments, I hear the youngins stirring and they have been promised a trip to the Zoo this am.
Andy wrote “If someone’s mother, father, sister, or grandmother was ill and came down with cancer, wouldn’t you want him or her to have a chance to get well?”
Now we are getting to the issue. “wouldn’t you want him or her to have a chance to get well” and the answer is YES! The problem is I have to look at my family’s interest first. I must first make sure my family is prepared first before I begin helping anybody else.
Actually this is the way the US was up till the 1930’s. Families and neighborhoods pooled together to help each other. This is what made the US great. But something happened to change this fabric from one of helping each other to government is responsible.
If you see a person drowning, would you not want to save them? What is the first thing you do? Throw, row, go? What happens if you cannot swim? Chances are if you go in after them you both will drown.
When an airplane has an emergency and the oxygen masks fall, what do they tell you? You first place your own mask on “YOU” (selfish?) before helping others. The reason is if you spend time trying to help a small child or elderly person or any other person first, you may run out of time and become incapacitated leaving the person you are attempting to help in the same danger they were in first. You do no one any good. By first taking care of yourself, you make yourself available to help others with a strong foundation.
With Healthcare, it is not about a strong foundation or the ability of others to help, but how much will be taken. If you take too much from a family, they become less capable of taking care of themselves and most likely become dependents instead of supporters.
Before you have devise a Healthcare plan, you first need to create objectives and criteria. I have heard the objective is to make Healthcare Affordable, but how are they going to do it? What are the bench marks for measuring success or failure? Right now all I hear is that they plan to reduce Medicare reimbursement rates to doctors. When this happens, my family’s Healthcare costs go up. When they talk about standardizing Insurance coverage, I end up paying for things I do not need or will ever use. States regulate insurance coverage and this is why insurance is higher today. When I hear that pre existing conditions (which I have) would not exclude you from coverage, who ends up paying for this higher risk the pre existing condition creates? I hear an 8% payroll tax will be assessed, yet the the Healthcare is 16% of economy. Does this not raise a red flag? There is too much emotion in this debate and too little analysis. Emotion has never solved a single problem.
This is a very complicated problem. We have cost shifting. We have people paying other peoples Heathcare who cannot afford their own now. We have insurance companies negotiating with providers in large blocks who then make little money and pass the cost onto the uninsured. We have individual choices that affect our health. What is the true cost of a procedure when there are multiple prices charged to different people? It is not like going to a grocery store where every person in there pays the same price for the same item within the store. We shop around, yet with national Healthcare the consumer will be removed 100% from the Healthcare cost, just present your card and you get service regardless of cost. Someone else will pay for it.
National Healthcare hides the difficult decisions that must be made. Healthcare is an individual problem, not a group problem. I would rather have 310 million making individual choices competing individually than one group dictating what is covered and cost.
In God I trust, all others bring data!
Bill - Yes ” Without data, it’s just someone else’s opinion!”
William:
Locate for me the U.S. Constitutional Article that sets out the right to vote at the inception of this country with the signing of the Constitution in 1787. Locate for me the Amendment in the Bill of Rights added in 1791 that says we all have the right to vote.
You won’t find the right to vote itself in the Constitution but rather something that was controlled state to state. And, you won’t find it in any of the amendments known as the Bill of Rights.
If it were a “right”, why did blacks and women need to wait to be given that right by white males?
The right to vote for women and minorities was a long, hard fight, just as the “right” to healthcare has become. The defining of rights is done by society, and if enough Americans believe that health care is a right, then it will eventually become one.
Education, as a right, is not established in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. It is seen as a right because our society has defined it as such. The definition of rights belongs to each society.
@ Charlotte
Article 1, Section 2.
John G:
The section simply says “shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several states.” It recognizes the states’ ability to give or deny the right to vote - there is no explicit right in the Constitution to vote. The states chose to exlude certain groups - did the Constitution protect those groups? Absolutely not.
Find me the place where it says that women had the right to vote from day one as guaranteed by the Constitution as a right.
Nowhere in the Constitution does it give a federal gaurantee of a right to vote. If the states had decided - as they did - that only certain people could vote, the federal Constitution provided no protection and certainly no guidance.
This is evidenced by the fact that the 15th amendment and the 19th amendment had to be passed to guarantee voting rights to specific groups. If the Constitution, indeed, provided a guaranteed right to vote to all citizens, then additional amendments would not have been necessary to secure that right.
Did the Constitution define “People” to include women or blacks? Again, the Constitution is silent on voting rights. The Constitution defers to the states to determine voting criteria.
@ Charlotte,
Your definition of a right would impose a burden on me. That would result in an infringement on my rights. As I was taught years ago, your rights stop at my nose and my rights stop at yours. To put it in another way, when my rights infringe on yours is where my rights cease and where your rights infringe on mine is where yours cease.
If you would like it in mathematical terms, I think I can do that as well.
The constitution stated people. The context of people in 1776 was everyone, no one is excluded. Why did it take so long for slavery to end and women to gain the right to vote? It is called bigotry, male chauvinist pig and more. I was not alive then and have no first hand experience. I cannot answer why people allowed slavery. Obviously many never agreed which led to the end of slavery. As for women not being allowed to vote, many did not support this, but they finally did get the right to vote.
What we today have a responsibility to do is to respect each other’s rights. Otherwise some future man or woman may think we too were uncouth to allow something to happen. What I do know is that if you voluntarily give up your rights without questioning the state (police, politicians, public school, local government, congress, etc), it is your own fault. When you do this, you have no legal standing in court for redress.
John -
After not checking in on the local blogosphere for some time now, I had hoped to see a slightly more positive view from you, particularly regarding the outstanding success of Parkview Field. Silly me. .
So, I’d like to share my morning routine with you; it brought a smile to my face and i hope it does the same for you:
I opened an OLD file named JohnBKalb. I ATTEMPTED to send it to the recycle bin, however that command was denied due to the file being corrupted, unresponsive to adaptation, and well past it’s “best by” date. As this file was labeled “read only” (stubborn and dug in), I was forced to reformat my hard drive. Much to my relief, my system recovered marvelously, and now accepts new commands without a hitch.
I guess sometimes you just have to realize that the world has moved on, the new OS really IS an improvement, and pissing into the wind only makes you smell bad to others. . .
@William Larsen-
You think Aetna pulling in 2 Billion in profit in 2007 is a good thing.
Now if Aetna had an impeccable reputation of providing adequate, quality, medical care, for their policy holders, I think they would deserve to make a reasonable profit.
But, by the looks of these complaints, many of their customers feel otherwise:
http://www.complaintsboard.com/bycompany/aetna-a43245.html
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/insurance/aetna_health.html
Again, free market, free enterprise, good ‘old fashioned capitalism is a good thing. But combine it with healthcare, and profits will eventually trump patient care.
You made a reference to the kids selling lemonade out of a wagon.
You said :
“It is no different than the two neighborhood kids who this last summer went around pulling a wagon with a snow cone machine, ice, syrup, straws and cups.”
I disagree, we’re talking healthcare here, not snow cones.
You might want to check out US healthcare giant Cigna while you’re at it:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/26/us-healthcare-obama-barack-change
Former Cigna senior executive, Wendell Potter, who worked for Cigna for 15 years (not just some one year fly-by-nighter) has quite a bit to say about mixing corporate profit (greed) with patient care.
Potter states:
“I worked as a senior executive at health insurance companies and I saw how they confuse their customers and dump the sick: all so they can satisfy their Wall Street investors.”
“This is a very wealthy industry and they use PR very effectively. They manipulate public opinion and the news media and they have built up these relationships with all these politicians through campaign contributions,”
“It is a system that is rigged against the policyholder,”
All too often, guess who the people are who suffer ? The healthcare execs know the average American lacks the necessary time and financial resources it takes to appeal and fight a medical claim denial.
Guess who walks away with a golden parachute and laughing all the way to the bank ?
I thinking has been relatively slowed lately and when one asked if Women were included in the definition of people, I should have responded with this. What is the definition of people? ?It is used in the Declaration of Independence as well as the US and State Constitutions. Indian expands upon the US Constitution regarding the First Amendment. What is the criteria used by courts in determining the plain and literal meaning? Though the paragraphs below are used to interpret statutes, they are also used to interpret the US Constitution. I have used these court cases successfully numerous times in the past.
In construing a statute, courts generally seek the plain and literal meaning of its language. See United States v. Locke, 471 U.S. 84, 93, 95-96 (1985); United States v. American Trucking Associations, Inc., 310 U.S. 534, 543 (1940). For that purpose, courts generally assume that Congress uses common words in their popular meaning. See Commissioner v. Groetzinger, 480 U.S. 23, 28 (1987), affg. 771 F.2d 269 (7th Cir. 1985).
In deciding whether the regulation comports with the statute’s plain language, we look to the ordinary usage or settled meanings of the words used in the statute by Congress. See Lynch v. Alworth-Stephens Co., 267 U.S. 364, 370 (1925). There is a strong presumption that Congress expresses its intention through the language it chooses. See INS v. Cardoza- Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 432 n.12 (1987).
A regulation may not contradict the unambiguous language of a statute. See Citizen’s Natl. Bank v. United States, 417 F.2d 675 (5th Cir. 1969); Hefti v. Commissioner, 97 T.C. 180, 189 (1991), affd. 983 F.2d 868 (8th Cir. 1993).
Where the statute’s language is plain, the language is where the interpretive task should end, and the sole function of the courts is to enforce such language according to its terms. United States v. Ron Pair Enters., Inc., 489 U.S. 235, 241 (1989); United States v. Merriam, 263 U.S. 179, 187-188 (1923)(stating that tax statutes are not to be extended by implication beyond the clear import of the language used).
@William Larsen-
You think Aetna pulling in 2 Billion in profit in 2007 is a good thing.
Now if Aetna had an impeccable reputation of providing adequate, quality, medical care, for their policy holders, I think they would deserve to make a reasonable profit.
But, by the looks of these complaints, many of their customers feel otherwise:
http://www.complaintsboard.com/bycompany/aetna-a43245.html
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/insurance/aetna_health.html
Again, free market, free enterprise, good ‘old fashioned capitalism is a good thing. But combine it with healthcare and profits will eventually trump patient care.
You also said :
“It is no different than the two neighborhood kids who this last summer went around pulling a wagon with a snow cone machine, ice, syrup, straws and cups.”
I disagree, we’re talking healthcare here, not snow cones.
You might want to check out US healthcare giant Cigna while you’re at it:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/26/us-healthcare-obama-barack-change
Former Cigna senior executive, Wendell Potter, who worked for Cigna for 15 years (not just some one year fly-by-nighter) has quite a bit to say about mixing corporate profit (greed) with patient care.
Potter states:
“I worked as a senior executive at health insurance companies and I saw how they confuse their customers and dump the sick: all so they can satisfy their Wall Street investors.”
“This is a very wealthy industry and they use PR very effectively. They manipulate public opinion and the news media and they have built up these relationships with all these politicians through campaign contributions,”
“It is a system that is rigged against the policyholder,”
The healthcare execs know the average American lacks the necessary time and financial resources it takes to appeal a medical claim denial.
Andy said:
Case in point from ABCnews:
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Story?id=5517492&page=1
Compliments of a state run health care plan.
@ Charlotte
The language in Article 1, Section 2 is plain enough to me. Perhaps a little history from the Constitutional Convention will help you.
The Committee of the Whole discarded a counter resolution that the House be selected the State Legislatures, and not the people.
Elbridge Gerry suggested that members of the House be selected by State Legislatures from a list of candidates chosen by the people - it was also discarded.
Charles Pinckney suggested the members of the House be selected based on how each State Legislature directed, whether it be by State Legislature or a popular vote - it too was discarded.
James Madison and James Wilson argued that “selection by the people was necessary to link citizens directly to the national government to prevent the states from overpowering the central authority.” Their argument won and that is why Article 1, Section 2 secured direct popular election of the members of the House.
The original Virginia Plan had the House and Senate elected by popular vote but the Constitutional Convention produced a House by popular vote and a Senate by State Legislatures with the idea that the House would represent the people and the Senate would represent the states. This, of course, was changed with the 17th Amendment.
@Honest Abe-
I have never indicated, or advocated, for an individual state-run healthcare plan. Check my previous comments.
I have been consistent on my desire to have accessible, affordable healthcare for everyone in our country.
How we achieve this, is the issue at hand.
The national socialized healthcare plan we currently have in America, MEDICARE, has a high satisfaction rate from seniors and those with disabilities.
On the other hand, there are currently 12 Million Americans who are denied medical coverage by health insurance companies:
http://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/news/new-survey-finds-12-million-americans-denied-coverage-insurance-industry
I can assure you, I can find and post many, many sad stories of people all around the country who desperately needed medical care and were denied the opportunity to receive it based on a health insurance company’s decision.
Why do you think there are so many articles published on how to fight health insurance claim denials ?
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Insurance/KnowYourRights/HowToFightYourHealthInsurer.aspx
http://www.parade.com/articles/editions/2008/edition_01-20-2008/Fight_for_Your_Health_Care
Andy, I’ll take greedy insurance execs any day over hapless bureaucrats with “power” issues.
@ Andy
If we let “sad stories” be the determining factor as to how we spend tax dollars and increase deficit spending, the current 10 trillion dollar deficit will be a drop in the bucket.
“The national socialized healthcare plan we currently have in America, MEDICARE, has a high satisfaction rate from seniors and those with disabilities.”
I would hope that the Trillions spent on Medicare for a select few at the expense of my family, that those on Medicare who paid little for their coverage would have little complains. Did those who cashed out their accounts managed by Bernie Madoff complain? I know those who still had accounts with Bernie Madoff up to the end complained a lot.
Medicare is a ponzi scheme, if you live long enough you may get some of it. If you were 65 when it began in 1965, you got a fantastic deal at taxpayers expense.
If you want to hold Medicare up as the shining example of a well run Government Healthcare then you should be able to provide why it runs out of enough funds in 2018 to cover projected expenses?
John G:
Let’s try this again. Maybe you aren’t paying attention to what I am asking you to find for me in the federal constitution.
Article I, Section 2 provides a mechanism to elect legislators - it does not guarantee a “right” to vote. Otherwise women and minorities would have been able to vote from day one. Again, I will ask you, find the guarantee of the right to vote for all citizens on the date the Constitution was signed.
It doesn’t exist, and you know it as well as I do. You can recite all the Constitutional history you wish, but you will not find that the Constitution sets out a protected right to vote.
Voting was an issue that was left to the states. For instance, show me in the Bill of Rights - rights, get it - where the right to vote is set out specifically similar to that of Freedom of Religion, Freedom of the Press, etc.
These are rights that the Founding Fathers attached with which the federal government was admonished to not interfere.
The following link is from the US DoJ and clearly explains that before the Civil War, the U.S. Constitution provided no specific protections for voting:
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/voting/intro/intro_a.php
William:
I am more than familiar with the canons of construction in law. There are a number of others as well as the “plain meaning” canon you provided.
The cases that you state you have successfully used are all cases dated following the Civil War and the passage of the Civil War (or Reconstruction) amendments, which aided in the ability of the federal government to protect the right to vote.
Perhaps you will answer the question that John G. can’t quite seem to understand - that question is where in the U.S. Constitution does it provide the guarantee of a right to vote to all citizens at the time of the signing of the Constitution?
Referring to Article I, Section 2 is a red herring as that part simply provides a method of how legislators are to be selected.
The use of the word “people” - although you appear to be arguing that it should be given its “plain and literal” meaning - is defined by the day and age and manner in which the word is used. I would argue that the word “people” used at the time of the signing of the Constitution did not anticipate including women and blacks.
In fact, blacks were considered property and not “people.”
So, are you telling me that the word “people” as used in Article I, Section 2 included women and blacks? If you are asking to have the word to be given its plain meaning, then women and blacks would have been able to vote from the signing of the Constitution.
Obviously, that was not the case. The “right” to vote was and is settled by the states and their constitutions, not the U.S. Constitution (at least not until after the Civil War amendments were added).