5 freedoms you'd lose in health care reform

[Plissken]

Originally Posted by Steve Levin

Actually, let me quote Robert Reich, the Secretary of Labor under Clinton and one of President Obama's advisors, with regards to "what the truth would be" about health care if we were honest about health care reform:

by the way, we are going to have to, if you're very old, we're not going to give you all that technology and all those drugs for the last couple years of your life to keep you maybe going for another couple of weeks. It's too expensive, so we're going to let you die. (emphasis added)

You know, I'm like a dog with a bone. I can't help myself. I see a quote like that and I want to know where it is from. So a quick Google later and the results are from:

The American Spectator
Conservatives4Palin
Patriots and Liberty

And a whole bunch of right wing blogs. My Spidey sense is tingling.

And here is the best bit, the best of all.

Reich said it in 2007. About the current US healthcare system.

Emphasis added, by the way.

In fact, I'll repeat myself, because context is important. He did it during a speech where he said things that politicians would never say. He did it about the present US system and he did it in 2007 when Barack Obama was a Senator and not even running for the Democratic candidancy.

You see, anyone can take quotes, chop the context and time out of them and use them to present "the truth". It is annoying bastards like me that point out the tricks being used.

You twisted the quote into a lie.

But that isn't the only one, is it?

let me quote Robert Reich, the Secretary of Labor under Clinton and one of President Obama's advisors

That is what you said.

Let's go to Reichs own biography, shall we?

Originally Posted by His own biography

Robert B. Reich has served in three national administrations, most recently as secretary of labor under President Bill Clinton. He also served on President-Elect Obama's transition advisory board.

So he was one of President Obama's advisors. During the transition period, which ended in January. A quick Wiki shows he was an advisor in economic, not healthcare matters.

So basically, you are trying to fool me and the people here by presenting a quote from one of Obamas current healthcare advisors about the current healthcare situation. In fact it is over two years old, a hypothetical mockup of a situation about the then healthcare situation from a guy who specialises in economics.

Don't believe me?

Here is the speech

Love 'n' kisses.

[nomix]

Originally Posted by Steve Levin

I read somewhere that the waiting time for a hip replacement in Norway is a bit over 4 months, compared to just 21 days in the US.

I suppose you could just minimize these things and say "oh, heck, it's just three months."

As stated by others.. the patient gets the hip replacement. 50 million Americans don't. They can wait for a lifetime if they don't have health insurance. That beats 4 months.

And the question is... does a 77 year old man in poor health, that is diagnosed with brain tumor, always get rushed to the hospital, given surgery and every possible heroic effort? Broadly speaking, while that IS true in the US, it's not true in most national health systems. But don't take my word for it. Take Robert Reich's word for it. As I said before, he's a current advisor to the Obama administration. Not exactly buddies with Sarah Palin, for example

I haven't had experience with brain tumors in my familiy, but my grandpa got heart problems, his chances of survival was slim (he died, sadly), he got rushed into surgery, even if it didn't work that time. My grandma got problems with her back, she had a three week waiting time, and got treatment. My father has been waiting for a couple of months for some dental surgery, but that's not exaclty a killer in any case.

Your view of the socialized health care in Europe seems to be faulty.

And when we throw around terms such as "fundamental rights" and then casually accept intentional violation of them because it "isn't a big deal compared to some other issues" that just seems silly.

No it does not. Things take time, but that is not as big an issue as NOT GETTING THE BLOODY SURGERY AT ALL.

Getting the surgery at all is a fundemantal right in a modern society. I know you disagree, you've fallen for the propaganda.

I see little difference between the unwillingness to spend massively on health care for the elderly, and not yet having some form of universal health coverage. Ultimately, both are decisions of policy.

As stated, that is not true. The elderly get the same treatment as the young, the middle aged and the newly born.

One might argue that the solution is to have both universal coverage AND not only be willing to expend heroic efforts on the elderly, but also to make all resources available on very short timelines. The trouble is, of course, that it would be very, very expensive. So all countries have made some form of policy and accept something less than that standard.

Health care is noticably more expensive for the average American, even without universal coverage. And it's still not true that the elderly are left to die in socialized medicine. In America, you are however left to die if you can't afford the bloody care.

In fact, clearly, using Norway as an example, there's not even much desire to improve their system. They've made their decisions, and are okay with the balance they've set. But to speak of health care "rights" and then casually dismiss the systemic violation of that right by nationalized health care systems is despicable.

There is no violation of that right, that is untrue. There are longer waiting times, yes. But there is universal coverage. Let me pose to you the question, would you want to wait four monts for a hip replacement, or not having it at all?

[Karoug]

I just checked, hospitals here varies quite a bit regarding the waiting times But the minimum waiting time for a hip replacement is 2 weeks. So that's obviously the hospital i would go to..

[tigger]

Originally Posted by Plissken

Marine gets his legs blown off in Afghanistan? Tough shit, stumpy.

I know you were making an example, but funny thing; the US armed forces are taken care of by a socialized (and underfunded ) hospital system called the Veteran's Administration. That Marine will be taken care of, surgeries, therapy and drugs paid for; for the rest of his life. Without ever paying a dime.

For example, my dad is a Vietnam veteran. Without the VA he would currently be either $700,000 in debt (and paying for a ton of pills) or dead.

[Cobol74]

Originally Posted by tigger

I know you were making an example, but funny thing; the US armed forces are taken care of by a socialized (and underfunded ) hospital system called the Veteran's Administration. That Marine will be taken care of, surgeries, therapy and drugs paid for; for the rest of his life. Without ever paying a dime.

That is good, better is everyone gets that level of care, as they do in most European countries and I believe Canada.

You guys (US) really, really must get it out of your head that America is best at everything - you are not, no one is, and in this case it costs lives. Step back and look at your system without nationalistic "pride" but with realism. Look at the stats, at the numbers of people going bankrupt, at the disasterous costs of prescription drugs - and do something about it.

[tigger]

Originally Posted by Cobol74

That is good, better is everyone gets that level of care, as they do in most European countries and I believe Canada.

You guys (US) really, really must get it out of your head that America is best at everything - you are not, no one is, and in this case it costs lives. Step back and look at your system without nationalistic "pride" but with realism. Look at the stats, at the numbers of people going bankrupt, at the disasterous costs of prescription drugs - and do something about it.

Unfortunately many people (legislators included) would rather just not deal with the problem.

[British_Rover]

Originally Posted by Plissken

Lots of serious ownage removed to save space

Love 'n' kisses.

Oh god that was awesome.

[MacGuffin]

Reality just made this discussion a bit more obsolete.

[teeb]

Originally Posted by MacGuffin

Reality just made this discussion a bit more obsolete.

Democratic Senators must now consider their own bill. They need 60 out of 100 votes to bring it to a final vote.

There are only 57 Democrats and two independents in the Senate. Two Republicans have signalled they could approve a compromise health bill.

If it is passed, lawmakers from both houses will try to reconcile the two versions before the programme can be signed into law by the president.

As I understand it, it's not quite there yet.

[Plissken]

Is there any way of downloading that Olbermann hour?

Edit: I'm on a crap mobile connection, and fancy watching/listening to it on my iPod.

[Steve Levin]

Originally Posted by nomix

I haven't had experience with brain tumors in my familiy, but my grandpa got heart problems, his chances of survival was slim (he died, sadly), he got rushed into surgery, even if it didn't work that time. My grandma got problems with her back, she had a three week waiting time, and got treatment. My father has been waiting for a couple of months for some dental surgery, but that's not exaclty a killer in any case.

Your view of the socialized health care in Europe seems to be faulty.

So we're down to specific defenses here?

Simple fact: America spends twice as much on elder care (people in the last 24 months of their lives) as any other nation. That's an enormous part of the per-capita difference.

You can pluck an example here or there, but you cannot argue the facts. Those waiting lists effectively deny treatment to a large number of people because you allow them to die instead.

What kind of civilised nation, to use your term, would allow such a thing?

Who would be proud to tout the "phantom" support of the universal right to health care -- that you have it, but there's no promise that you'll actually get it.

That's shameful. Far more shameful than being imperfect and admitting it.

Steve

[Plissken]

Originally Posted by Steve Levin

You can pluck an example here or there, but you cannot argue the facts. Those waiting lists effectively deny treatment to a large number of people because you allow them to die instead.

What kind of civilised nation, to use your term, would allow such a thing?

Good job in the UK, it doesn't. I'll get treated no matter what. That is why it is called ""Universal" health care.

[epp_b]

I read somewhere that the waiting time for a hip replacement in Norway is a bit over 4 months, compared to just 21 days in the US.

Hip replacement is non-life-threatening elective. Where health care depends on your condition and not your wallet, optional procedures take a back seat to critical ones.

And the question is... does a 77 year old man in poor health, that is diagnosed with brain tumor, always get rushed to the hospital, given surgery and every possible heroic effort?

This line of thinking should be taken out back and shot. Everyone is capable of some sort of contribution to the world, regardless of age.

[nomix]

Originally Posted by Steve Levin

So we're down to specific defenses here?

We're down to examples, and to be frank, they are representable. You paint a faulty picture of socialized health care in an attempt to scare people from it. Fair enough, but let's be honest about it, eh?

Simple fact: America spends twice as much on elder care (people in the last 24 months of their lives) as any other nation. That's an enormous part of the per-capita difference.

Sure, but you have to remember that the Norwegian system does spend money on all people, all of the time, all of their lives. Your system does not, but I'll grant you that, you do spend a lot of money in the last years of the human life, just a pity you haven't gotten around to do that for people of all ages.

You can pluck an example here or there, but you cannot argue the facts. Those waiting lists effectively deny treatment to a large number of people because you allow them to die instead.

What kind of civilised nation, to use your term, would allow such a thing?

Well, waiting lists for life saving procedures aren't at all that common, and you should be able to understand that a shoddy hip, painful as it might be, is not life treathening.

What's the waiting list for a kidney transplant if you haven't got health insurance, by the way?

Who would be proud to tout the "phantom" support of the universal right to health care -- that you have it, but there's no promise that you'll actually get it.

Well, in fact, that is just faulty. There is a promise that you'll get it, and you get it. But for non life saving procedures, you might have to wait. I'll admit that, that's a problem, I'd like to fix it. But again, how long are the waiting lists for a kidney transplant if you don't have coverage in the US?

That's shameful. Far more shameful than being imperfect and admitting it.

Steve

There's no perfect system, and I'll be happy to admit it. In fact, I've done it several times.

But it's still a fact that the picture you paint of socialized health care is faulty.

[IceBone]

Originally Posted by Plissken

Is there any way of downloading that Olbermann hour?

Edit: I'm on a crap mobile connection, and fancy watching/listening to it on my iPod.

He has a podcast of his latest, http://msnbcpod.rd.llnwd.net/e1/vide...009-211728.m4v , but you need to go here to watch the previous shows in segments:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/

[Posmo]

Originally Posted by Racin

Maybe because the US uses 16% of it's BNP on healthcare, compared to UK's 8%. The US gets worse healtcare but uses twice the money.

Touché, I'd say.

[Plissken]

Drug Makers Raise Prices in Face of Health Care Reform

Wow... the most used drugs by Medicare patients went up in price by 9.3% last year. Profiteering while they can.