Community | November 24, 2009 | 33 comments

Republicans and Democrats Are Both Terrible For Health Care / lp.org

Image
shanklinmike
I don't know about you, but I'm getting a little tired of hearing Republicans act self-righteous about this health care bill. Of course it's a terrible bill that will increase government and taxes and make our health care worse -- but let's take a short trip down memory lane.

In November 2003........

***This article has been chosen as a discussion topic on PFP Movement Radio, http://www.blogtalkradio.com/pfpmovementradio Friday night at 6pm-8pm. Please Call In To The Show, 347-633-9636. COMMENTS will be included in the show so feel free to discuss or ask questions here on current.com as they will be addressed during the show. This article will also air on Freedom Hour Saturday at 9pm-10pm on Movement TV http://www.peacefreedomprosperity.com/?page_id=36***
  1. groups:
    Community,   Current Tonight,   Healthcare,   Modern Majic,   2 more
  2. tags:
    News News and Politics Politics Current TV 15 more
  3.     
    |

33 comments // Republicans and Democrats Are Both Terrible For Health Care / lp.org

  • bullpcp
    • 0
      bullpcp  
    • This video explains the problem and connections with and between Big Government (powerful centralized government) and Big Business (Corporatism). This video explains why representative governments should wield power according to their closeness to their constituency and how business use Big Governmental policies and regulations to their advantage and how this leads to Corporatism. Big Government is not the countermeasure to Big Business but a necessary component for its creation. It's not Big Government versus Big Business. It's Big Government (powerful centralized government) creates Big Business (Corporatism and Corporatocracies).
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtzrqvPfnE0&feature=channel

    • 2 years ago
  • Mike_Beitler
  • peterzylstramoore
    • 0
      peterzylstramoore  
    • You also talk about the inefficiencies of government regulation. Though I grant that the FDA and other bodies are controlled by corporations this is the problem not the ideas of them.

      Without them you get corporate advertising lies and no public information (as was the case in cigarette companies).

      The fact is that corporations are always going to try and over-represent their products, and cut costs at the expense of the environment. Without government intervention the wages are effected by a class struggle in which the persons who in the large majority of cases were born into capital, have all the power.

      For those of us who aren't trying to ignore science (like global warming) or that every living thing is in decline, for those of us who acknowledge the simple fact that the planet has boundaries that we cannot consume beyond, we realize that consumption needs to be regulated in order for it to be sustainable. Without a tax that raises the price of polluting businesses will polute if it's cheaper. Without restrictions on getting drugs certified businesses will make shit up. Eventually the consumer might find out, but eventually were dead.

      I know it's nice to have the same answer to everything (more free markets), but the real world is greyer then that.

    • 2 years ago
  • wally60
  • peterzylstramoore
    • 0
      peterzylstramoore  
    • Image
    • Setting aside price the US does not have determinately better results.

      In a study of five OECD countries (the United States, Canada, the United
      Kingdom., Australia, and New Zealand), no country emerged as clearly superior.
      The United States had the highest breast cancer survival rate but the lowest kidney
      transplant survival rate. In terms of preventable diseases, the United States had the
      highest prevalence of measles, but the lowest prevalence of Hepatitis B. In terms of
      process indicators, the United States had the highest rate of cervical cancer
      screenings. Another survey found that higher proportions of Americans reported
      receiving recommended preventive services for diabetic and hypertensive patients
      compared with five other OECD countries. It also found that Americans were the
      least likely to have had the same doctor for five years or more, were most likely to
      complain that their doctor did not spend enough time with them, and were most
      likely to have left an appointment without getting important questions answered.81
      A six-country comparison found that the United States was the best provider of
      preventive care but had the worst rating in terms of medical errors. This international
      survey of practitioners also found that the United States was fifth out of the six
      countries in terms of the “patient-centeredness” of care and the coordination of care
      between multiple providers. Patients in the United States were most likely to visit
      an emergency department for a condition that could have been treated by a regular
      doctor.

      Although the United States does not have long wait times for non-emergency
      surgical procedures, this does not appear to be the case for primary care doctor visits.
      In a survey of five OECD countries in 2004, U.S. respondents were the second-least
      able to make a same-day doctor’s appointment when sick and had the most difficulty
      getting care on nights and weekends. They were also the most likely to delay or
      forgo treatment because of cost.

      Again the reason for it is in high cost industries you are going to have oligopolies develop. In some of these cases it is better to have government intervention.

      http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34175_20070917.pdf

      You can hand pick and find the occasional things the US does well, but in general they provide at best average care at about double the cost.

    • 2 years ago
  • neocongo
    • 0
      neocongo  
    • From your article:

      There's only one party that really opposes government health care, and that's the Libertarian Party. We've always been against it, and we'll always be against it. But that doesn't mean we want to force your health care into the hands of big insurance companies or big pharmaceutical companies, or subject it to the monopolizing effects of today's licensing laws.

      As our platform states, "We favor restoring and reviving a free market health care system."

      You are the party in favor of private insurance and corporate run everything every bit as much as the Republicans. And in the face of massive corporate failures, predictably, you blame the government. The Libertarian party is just a branch of the Republican party, and both are the flashiest, most sequined, cadillac driving, pink and fur clad pimps for our country to be slaves to a monopoly ridden corporate America. Your party is a lie, and if you call yourself a Libertarian, you are an idiot.

    • 2 years ago
  • shanklinmike
    • 0
      shanklinmike  
    • neocongo:

      See this people, this is exactly what we have been screaming for decades! That Keynesian liberals do not understand the difference between crony capitalism/government advantages, and free market laissez-faire capitalism that disables corporate loopholes and advantages. Corporations are only there because of governments!!! That's the whole scam, corporations are empowered by government coercion, and after the late 1880s, corporations started going through the judicial branch to increase their overall power! Corporations soon took major seats in government and sent powerful lobbyists and special interests to represent them, building protectionist efforts. Just look at today, GSEs (government sponsored enterprises - also known to libertarians as socialism for the rich) began springing up. Where the housing market used to be saturated by less than 10% of Freddie/Fannie, government soon helped them gain a competitive advantage enabling dock/liar loans, sub-prime mortgages, and basically pushing poor people into homes they couldn't afford. The banker then turns around and liquidates their assets at the Federal Reserve. It's has nothing to do with free markets and all about crony capitalism/government backed corporatism! The libertarian party understands the difference between Keynesian, Neocon, and freedom.....They understand OTHER people's views as well, unlike many of our friends on the other side of the aisle who only think they know what the other side is stating but really are clueless to their opponents platforms.

    • 2 years ago
  • unimatrix0
  • bullpcp
    • 0
      bullpcp  
    • Image
    • Ozzykozzy2
      I have anything but a simplistic view of health care economics and don't ignore any evidence as I'm more of a pragmatist than an idealist. While I would agree with you about the US having the costliest health care in the world I seriously doubt it is any less efficient than many others. While the US health care is the most costly it is also has the highest efficacy. Survivability rates from the most common life threatening ailments including cancer and cardiovascular disease in the US health care system are approximately four times that in most other industrialized countries. In other words we have the best and most expensive health care in the world.

      As far as the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) statistics they could very well be correct but governments are notorious for under stating the costs of programs. For instance In the District Columbia, the spending figure cited most commonly is $8,322 per child, but total spending is approximately $24,600 per child. The commonly cited figure counts only part of the local operating budget. To calculate total spending, we have to add up all sources of funding for education from kindergarten through 12th grade, excluding spending on charter schools and higher education. For the 2008 year, the local operating budget was $831 million, including relevant expenses such as the teacher retirement fund. Add another 11% inefficiencies of collecting taxes and you arrive at over $27,000 per pupil. This is a real life example from the US but I doubt governments in other countries are any better.

      The start up costs in a free health care market would not be high. It is because it is not free that these costs are so high. Every new government regulation of health care require more bureaucracy to comply and increases start up costs reducing competition. Less than fifty years ago 90% of hospitals where small and 10% where large as the necessary bureaucracy increased with regulation the ratio turned to 10% small practices and 90% large institutions. Again not the result of free market but the result of interference in the free market.

      Almost certainly your government run electricity has other factors influencing cost for it to be the cheapest in your country and as for the supposed private electricity provided in other parts of the country a government mandated and supported private monopoly has nothing to do with free markets. You can't turn over electricity in a certain area to a single private electric company and expect any free market competition. Your health care costs may be lower, don't know how much considering the governments use of accounting tricks that would make Enron look good, but so is the quality of your health care.

      Considering the lack of economic rigor you displayed in your superficial health care analysis perhaps it is you who should look into the dangers of simple ideologies and it is you who should take a closer look at reality. You need to study health care in more detail and look into the studies you cite. I haven't gone into the complete absurdity of the US's 37th ranking by the world health organization but would love to as I have the feeling that despite your assumption of intellectual and academic superiority you haven't bothered to look up their rankings methodology. I'll even give you the links so you can bone up for more informed debate.

      http://current.com/170ae4c
      http://current.com/items/91151560_why-the-u-s-ranks-low-on-whos-health-care-stud...
      http://current.com/items/91151566_letters-who-health-rankings-all-about-ideology...
      http://current.com/items/91151571_world-health-organization-rankings-distort-u-s...
      http://current.com/items/91151576_political-bias-in-who-health-system-rankings.h...
      http://current.com/items/91151581_were-number-37-in-health-care.htm

    • 2 years ago
  • NIkoN
  • ThePoliticalMachine
    • 0
      ThePoliticalMachine  
    • The mandatory healthcare clause paired with minimum coverage requirements in H.R. 3200 is used as a cost saving mechanism, which scares me to death. They are taking away our freedom of choice which is exactly the same as making same sex marriages illegal. Or making pot Illegal. Are they going to make unhealthy foods illegal? Are they going to start telling us how many kids we can have? Whats the point of security if we end up sacrificing all of our freedoms??

    • 2 years ago
  • bullpcp
    • 0
      bullpcp  
    • ThePoliticalMachine:

      It makes no sense for the government to remove the mandates they require of private insurers and allowing themselves the ability to operate across state lines while denying private insurers the same opportunities. You can't have it both ways either the mandates and operating across state lines are unfair and amoral and none should do so or it is fair and all should have the opportunity.

    • 2 years ago
  • bashirdr
    • 0
      bashirdr  
    • ThePoliticalMachine:

      The mandatory coverage thing is so that people don't wait until they get sick before they buy coverage (if they did premiums would never cover cost of care!). I wasn't so sure about mandatory coverage at first, because the insurance companies are pushing for it, but I read this explanation in the paper and was forced to agree.

    • 2 years ago
  • shanklinmike
    • 0
      shanklinmike  
    • ThePoliticalMachine:

      See the mentality, these people want to force others to do things, as if you can control long-run coercion and enslave these people for their own 'good'. That is what is wrong here, everyone allowing slavery to occur around them while ignoring the external, yet direct costs associated with such actions. Mandated insurance, just like crazy Mitt Romney wants, is just that, crazy, not to mention immoral. Why fine poor people who can't afford healthcare? We could go on for hours about how wrong it is, but the real goal of education at this point is for people to spread the message that we are actually being set up for some sort of government corporate sector that will monopolize and destroy what good is left in this corporate/government backed current system. In all reality, Obama is just more status quo....and if any republican defends Bush, you CAN call them a socialist, because Bush was one of the worst! This big government republicrat party needs to go, but there are too many stupid enslaver voters......it appears economic freedom, civil liberties, and noninterventionist foreign policy are thrown away from the bureaucrats/media's wants, screw the citizen.....that is at least the mentality out of all this, that the central planners will 'fix' the problem they created (although they are always pointing fingers at others)......what a crazy world we live in!

    • 2 years ago
  • bullpcp
    • 0
      bullpcp  
    • Ozzykozzy2

      How is the US health care system in any reasonable way a free market system. It is one the most regulated sectors of our society with the government paying almost half of every dollar spent on health care. You want true health care reform then eliminate the following problems don't add to the third party payer problem and add the systemic inefficiencies of big government.

      The medical industrial complex has a monopoly and artificial limits the supply of health care professionals. In fact a couple of decades ago they lobbied congress to reduce the supply of doctors by 10% to insure future salaries and many schools continue to turn down applicant with perfect GPAs and limit class sizes. The FDA decides what drugs pass after an incredibly inefficient drug trial process, far better statistical approaches are available, that limits entry to those that can afford 100s of millions if not billions to pass new drugs. The FDA is also corrupt many of its members have been successfully convicted of taking bribes from big agro and big pharma for special privileges. The government gave special privileges to blue cross and blue shield, that were created by the medical community to insure high prices, forcing insurance companies to provide coverage for non catastrophic medical events. The government limited pay during WWII so companies compensated employees with more benefits. The government gave health benefits tax exempt status encouraging employers to give a disproportionate amount of compensation in health benefits. This gave a tremendous amount of power to the health insurance companies, created the third party payer problem essentially eliminating much of the pricing mechanisms necessary for a free market system. You don't care how much something costs that you aren't paying for it, insurance pays, and doctors don't care about quality and efficiency because their pay isn't dependent on you, it's dependent on insurance. Government then placed limits on the insurance companies so they couldn't operate across state lines and placed some 2900 mandates on policies in different states. Mandates are universal additions to all insurance in a state and include such universal additions as nutritionists, drug counseling, yoga instructors, personal trainers and such inappropriate options as prenatal care for men or AAA for nonalcoholics. These mandates account for almost 50% of insurance costs in some states. Then their is Medicaid and Medicare that when included with state and local government medical spending pay for almost 50% of all health care costs. Since when the government pays it sets prices below the market doctors are forced to pass these added expenses onto private insurance companies.

    • 2 years ago
  • bailey78
  • peterzylstramoore
    • 0
      peterzylstramoore  
    • Libertarians have a simple understanding of microeconomics, and simply ignore anything that falls outside their world view. The US private sytem is the least efficient in the world, and the problem with the bill is that it is not allowing for a single payer system.

      A good comparison of healthcare systems is given by the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), which looks at a range of economically developed democracies. It recognized that the U.S. spends more than any country in the world (US$6,102 in 2004, now US$7,290) per person on healthcare, over double the average of the other OECD countries (US$2,438). The U.S. spends 15.3 per cent of it’s GDP on healthcare, compared to an average of 8.6 per cent, more per person on healthcare than the Canadian government. (quoted from my article http://www.themanitoban.com/articles/22472)

      Please read the actual report http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34175_20070917.pdf

      The fact is that the free markets aren't competitive where the start up costs are high enough that you end up with very little competition and so private monopolists charge whatever they want. In these industries including healthcare its often much more efficient to have the government step in. (I live in Manitoba where our single provider government run electricity is far cheaper than anywhere else in Canada, not to mention our healthcare cost are under half that of the US while our wait times are similar, and our care is better)

      Libertarians need to get past their simple ideology and start looking at reality. This involves studying which is actually more efficient rather than automatically saying private markets are the best. Yes the democrats and republicans suck on health but it is because neither is offering a real public option or a government single payer system which history shows (for those who are interested in the real world and not defending their ideology) that governments in this case are more efficient.

      Ron Paul should stick to foreign policy.

    • 2 years ago
  • shanklinmike
    • 0
      shanklinmike  
    • Image
    • peterzylstramoore:

      "The US private system "

      STOP, right there YOU are being unrealistic! The system is a fascist-tinged corporatacracy, not free market, laissez-faire capitalism, if you can't even understand that, then the rest of your analysis is mute.

      Furthermore you ignore oversubsidization which enabled lower costs directly to consumers in centralized coercive monopoly protected industries whereas funding and revenue are not collected for that direct purpose. All of your ideals are shot down purely because you believe that first, anything that is not owned by the government is private (the biggest fallacy out there) which is not true. Government can easily control without ownership, through an array of regulations and taxation. You have a bleak sighted view of history, to ignore that last 50 years of negative externalities and protectionism that has enslaved us, and then to believe it falsely to be a direct problem with freedom, completely illogical and unhistorical! The greatest fallacy in the world is that these price distortions, shortages, increased costs, and high premiums will be 'cured' by the same system that created and has sustained them, the unconstitutional Federal monopoly bureaucracy.

      Even most 3rd graders I have met at least understand Federalism, sad to say most people here could use a little reading up on more efficient state spending.

      What kills me the most is the fact that the usurpers of the Commerce Clause jump directly to the unconstitutional Federal level. If you want to enslave your people, you can either continue the current system (NOT FREEDOM) or continue down the status quo path of more government (the same thing that has been occurring over the last 50+ years). Regardless, the state's competing would be better than a Federal unconstitutional monopoly. You have much to learn....

      http://mises.org/daily/3855

      http://mises.org/daily/3824

      http://mises.org/articles.aspx?action=gallery

    • 2 years ago
  • shanklinmike
  • Ozzykozzy2
  • bashirdr
    • 0
      bashirdr  
    • Well, republicans are bad for health care because they are a bunch of propaganda whores and power sluts. They'll do and say anything, regardless of what americans want, to prevent the dems from succeeding.

      Meanwhile, the dems can't agree on anything. Some refuse to vote for a bill with a public option, others refuse to vote for a bill without one. Hopefully they can see past it all and produce a bill that accomplishes the goals the american people want: quality affordable health care for all.

    • 2 years ago
  • shanklinmike
    • 0
      shanklinmike  
    • bashirdr:

      Competitive markets without government backed insurance protectionism is what is needed, This current centralized coercive monopoly has had it's hands in it for over 60 years....whatever bill is produced, expect costs to skyrocket and the average American left high and dry.....that IS what government has given us, what we need is less government/corporate slavery and more free markets to place market forces on the rich, government IS socialism for the rich at this point and I don't believe any government "experts" will be able to solve this problem, a crippled market problem....

    • 2 years ago
  • audi500a
    • 0
      audi500a  
    • bashirdr:

      YOU are waaaaaaay more trusty of a free market than I am. We've clearly seen what greedy corporations will/can do with little to no regulation. There has to be balance.

    • 2 years ago
  • shanklinmike
    • 0
      shanklinmike  
    • bashirdr:

      No, no, we have both seen the trouble caused, but you fail to see the central planned roots of government intervention that created all these problems, from the monopoly control of our currency and loose injections of credit into serparate industries, to the regulations that were purposely created by government sponsored enterprises...that's just the thing, you have been brainwashed into believing that we live in a free market and that this caused these problems. That is a lie, we have been enslaved by the regulators like the people at the SEC who gave Madoff the green light for almost 2 decades, to the failed government privatization at Enron, to the costly protectionist efforts that have led us to this coke vs pepsi, 2 product oligarchial market that you confuse for freedom. This has nothing to do with free market capitalism and almost every problem we are facing today has been a direct result of government interventionism and monopoly regulations that have enslaved us to central planning. Heck, healthcare over the last 60 years has had more government in it than just about anything else! In fact, government spends more than half of the healthcare dollars circulating. Don't be fooled by the bureaucrats just because they take your money quietly and give it back flamboyantly. Everything you are seeing is a result of slavery and government monopoly's not freedom! Not only that, almost everything you are seeing today is unconstitutional, from the wars, to the Federal health care, to the Patriot Act.......it's all just a part of the false left/right paradigm.

      Peace, and please wake up to the slavery soon!

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DIaNHPTVJU

    • 2 years ago
  • treewolf39
    • 0
      treewolf39  
    • Image
    • Government 2.0
      POSTED BY DAVID BOLLIER

      What if government were treated as an open platform available to everyone — much like the Web — rather than as a closed, semi-proprietary platform that serves those private interests with the money or insider access? That was the premise behind a major conference in Washington, D.C., on September 9-10 hosted by open-source champion and book publisher Tim O’Reilly and Richard O’Neill of the Highlands Group. The event, Government 2.0 Summit, http://www.gov2summit.com/ brought together a remarkable array of tech leaders, government officials, citizen advocates, entrepreneurs and others.

      The chief focus was on how digital technologies could make government more transparent and accountable, a theme that President Obama embraced in his Inaugural Address. How can the innovations of Web 2.0 such as “crowd-sourcing” and wiki-style collaboration be used to make government projects smarter and more effective?
      http://www.onthecommons.org/content.php?id=2529

    • 2 years ago
  • treewolf39
    • 0
      treewolf39  
    • We need to fight for transparency and accountability in government. It has been allowed to only serve itself and the interests of greed.

    • 2 years ago
  • nursediesel
    • 0
      nursediesel  
    • Gee, everyone of your statements are right on, far out and my exact feelings. (And my husband keeps telling me all those people on current are 20 year olds still living at home and don't give a rats ass about paying taxes as long as they think they're gettin' something for free!) I'M NOT ALONE!

    • 2 years ago
  • ScottyT
    • 0
      ScottyT  
    • The only thing worse than being dependent on doctors, big pharma and insurance companies to obtain healthcare would be, in my opinion, dependence on Democrats and Republicans.

      How can anyone actually believe that Congress will improve the state of our nation's health care industry? They can't fight a war. They can't balance a budget. They can't even deliver on the promises they've already made.

      I, for one, will not support any Congressional measure on health care reform. Nor will I pay one cent into any system they do create.

    • 2 years ago
  • Tina_Waters
    • 0
      Tina_Waters  
    • If we complain, we are terrorists or crazed people. THEY don't realize this is the first time in my life I have been so very disgusted with our representatives. Bush included! Label me a terrorist but I am FED UP!!

    • 2 years ago
  • Tina_Waters
    • 0
      Tina_Waters  
    • they don't get it!!! Or rather someone they work for MORE than they do us want it!!! Tort reform?? Oh i forgot the LAWYERS don't want that,,,AARP they want it so they can sell more secondary insurance, I could go on,,,I can't wait to vote again is all I can say without getting so angry I want to give me heartburn or something,,,

    • 2 years ago
  • Jim_Callihan
    • 0
      Jim_Callihan  
    • "We the people..." do NOT want "socialism lite". Nor do we want our tax $$$ going to BAILED-OUT CORPORATIONS and their "bonus program" to (dis)respective employees/CEO's. REAL "health care reform" addresses the ANTI-TRUST provisions and TORT REFORM!!!

    • 2 years ago
  • s0uthc0ast
    • 0
      s0uthc0ast  
    • Right!
      The government, period, is terrible for health care.
      That goes for municipal, state and federal government.
      For that matter, government in the past 47 years has shown itself to be terrible for energy, education, jobs, housing, food and just about anything else people using their common sense can do for themselves.
      We have reached the time where we must tell our government no thank-you, I will take my money back.

    • 2 years ago
more from Community:

top videos