Subscribe to Breaking NewsWithers: Republicans know very little about Medicare
First there is this clown screeching about death panels. Here is another Republican operative asking New York Representative Anthony Weiner, who is 44 years old, why he isn’t on Medicare if the program is so good.
Like any talker CNBC anchor Maria Bartiromo, when caught minus a fact in her head, barrels on as if the problem is with the congressman. There is nothing wrong with debate about health care and insurance, but if basic information gets in the way of a talking point, why are you even in the game?
We all know the deal. Bartiromo will be hailed as some role model for Republican women (special plea to all Republican young girls: forget Bartiromo, Palin, McCaughey. Set your sites on either Maggie Thatcher or Jeane Kirkpatrick). Her opinion on health care will still be sought. Heck given the tenor of the times, one of the Republican talking points will soon be if Medicare is so wonderful why isn’t the fascist/socialist/Nazi/Muslim/gay (that last one was for our own “genius” Ms. Menstruator) Obama using it.
At some point we citizens need to stop talking heads from playing us for chumps. That does not imply we all need to agree (small d democrat baby!), but it’s not asking much to have a serious conversation about serious issues. Bartiromo only offers pretty hair. We can get that from any reality show.
Facebook:
From your POV then we should not have public schools nor police departments nor garbage men etc etc etc just because it isn’t in the Constitution? Give us a break and come down from your lofty throne and live amoungst the everyday people.
Even the Bill of Rights does not give everyone a chance to own a bazooka and not only that since it isn’t in the same document people want to carry assault rifles to airports?? Neither were in existence at that time.
A document has to be flexible to be durable. I do not know the 10 commandments but I am sure if someone shot somebody (even by mistake) that you think they should be stoned to death? You have to put everything in context and adjust for current technology and geo political reality.
The Declaration of Independence was written over 250 years ago and should be viewed as any living document as a work in progress. As we now know technology has now made things possible that 250 years ago were not even conceived yet. It is latterly impossible to write any document that can stand up 250 years without some revisions.
Religion(take your pick) has the same issue(s). What was thought of 2 or 3 (or more thousand years ago) has almost zero relevance in todays world. The church (again take your pick) has been forced to modernize it is the classic modernize or die.
View points are no longer black and white and religions (just like governments) must incorporate change or they will die.
“It seems you are confused about my logic.”
I can’t be confused about your logic because there isn’t any logic to be confused about.
“The government has no reason to provide healthcare nor be involved in that entire arena.”
The government has every reason to be involved in a market that, due to issues of market failure cannot deliver the economically efficient result that would be expected in most markets. Adverse selection is, without question, a major market failure in the health insurance market.
There is no dispute among real-world economists about whether or not universal health care is more economically efficient than the situation in the United States. Absolutely none at all. There is essentially unanimous support for reform in strictly economic terms. All of the arguments made against it are based on the idea of personal rights, not economics. There is a *mountain* of data and academic work in this area. It’s not a new thing, and it is so well-researched that the poorly-thought out arguments from the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute can be regarded very simply as being without merit.
Obviously there are economists who will make an argument against it strictly on their beliefs regarding economic behavior, but those arguments are seldom peer-reviewed or academically published because they’re completely theoretical without being justified by data. I’ve *never* seen a data-based analysis on health care reform that can rationally conclude that reform is a bad thing. Putting things in context, I’ve read a *lot* of work in this area.
“As for anti-discrimination, and a strong military for that matter, the government does need to be involved, as the sole purpose of government is to protect its citizens, whether from violence and outside forces, a la strong army, or from discrimination.”
The government has no such Constitutional obligation and you know that. Show me ONE place in the Constitution where it says that the government *should* do these things. It certainly *can*; the Constitution very clearly gives the Congress the “authority” to raise a military, but does not *require* it to do so.
“It’s painfully obvious that many people fail to realize that there are swaths of people who honestly don’t care about your health predicaments.”
There are swaths of people who honestly don’t care whether gays should be able to marry or whether atheists should be eligible for public education too. What’s your point?
As a Canadian, I am very glad we have medicare– and at a cost much for affordable than the for-profit private insurance schemes my friends and relatives in the United States have to suffer.
Kari:
It seems you are confused about my logic. The government has no reason to provide healthcare nor be involved in that entire arena. In fact, the government should not be involved in private economic matters such as this. Regarding your examples of transgender individuals and anti-discrimination laws, I have the answers for you. The government should not be making laws forbidding transgender operations or declaring its sudden legality, as this is a personal liberty, and thus the government has no reason to be butting its head. So yes, you’re correct, the government has no obligation to say anything in that issue. As for anti-discrimination, and a strong military for that matter, the government does need to be involved, as the sole purpose of government is to protect its citizens, whether from violence and outside forces, a la strong army, or from discrimination. We erect government to protect us and serve us, not to tell us what to do when wanting health care with insufficient income.
It’s painfully obvious that many people fail to realize that there are swaths of people who honestly don’t care about your health predicaments. Although the passing of a loved one or injury to a loved from a lack of medical coverage due to a lack of money is a sad situation, it is no one’s responsiblity to get involved, do anything, or care, to be frank. If you can’t afford it, then you owe it to yourself to outperform the rest of your uninsured population to secure that luxury, should it be in the arena of getting hired for a lucrative job, obtaining a loan or financial aid, or beating the rest of the peers in getting an education. It’s time to get over yourselves and the sob stories, and actually do something about the problem.
Kelson:
“How does anyone know what is truth and what isn’t. The House version is over 1,000 pages. … And unless anyone else has read a copy of the bills in question who can say what is a lie and what isn’t?”
Uh, because maybe we’ve *have* read the bills? Yes, the bill is 1,000 pages. Just because you are *personally* not willing to read it in its entirety does not mean you’re allowed to pretend that things are in it when they aren’t.
“Everyone should take a careful look at their paycheck. The net is after taxes. Are you happy with the net (what is left after taxes)?”
No, but my dissatisfaction has less more to do with my base salary than the tax rate I pay.
“If not, then be careful what you ask government for because the net will decrease and the taxes will increase.”
Only for people making more than $250,000 a year, a tax bracket I’m not in.
“Instead of driving to work you may have to walk because driving is too expensive.”
I’m going to roll my eyes at you on this one.
“No job, no taxes, no government money.”
That’s irrational, because full employment isn’t going to exist naturally in the real world because of imperfect information in the labor market. It is incredibly illogical and completely naive to assume that the unemployed choose to be that way. (In fact, the *definition* of an unemployed person is a person who wants to find a job but cannot. A person who does not want to work is not considered unemployed.)
Jonathan Vogeler:
“Members of Congress have read these bills, their staff have read them,”
This isn’t always true. I doubt even half of Congress read the USA PATRIOT Act before they passed it.
Facebook User:
“The government has absolutely no obligation to be concerned about the healthcare of its citizens.”
It also has no obligation to protect gays from discrimination in private employment, maintain a strong military or allow its transgendered citizens to change their legal sex. Your argument is silly. Just because a government has no inherent “obligation” to do something does not mean it *shouldn’t* do it.
“If a vast swath of American people can’t afford decent healthcare, that should be a wake up call to themselves, not the government. Perhaps getting a better education and/or job will solve the lack of income problem. Instead of planting every problem we encounter on the government, why don’t we try to help ourselves for once?”
‘Personal responsibility’ is such a trite talking point. Individuals do not have complete control of their economic situation. Getting a beter education sounds all well and good, but how exactly should these people pay for it? Further, getting a better job sounds great until you look at the fact that there’s more people that want jobs than there are jobs for them to have.
Stop being naive. IF we had an economy where there were a surplus of high-paying jobs available, your argument would be reasonable. But such an economy DOES NOT AND CANNOT exist in the real world. If there were a lot of people skilled to do those jobs they wouldn’t pay as much. Supply and demand. Grow up.
bama-stu:
“Access to healthcare is a basic human right.”
I could not disagree more. I see absolutely no rational basis for an argument that health care is a human right.
“Big Business (aka the Republicans)”
The Republicans are not ‘big business’. Actually, the rich and powerful in private industry are more likely to be Democrats than Republicans. Republicans, ironically, are the group that has the most to gain by health care reform, as most Republicans are poor or working-class. I’ve always found it a little strange; politicians from both parties push for policies that most benefit the people who vote for the other party. Republican politicians support policies that would give the rich (who are more Democratic) tax breaks, while Democrats support policies that would put money (directly or indirectly) in the pockets of Republican voters.
Kelson: My parents live in England and for all their working lives, paid taxes. Yes those taxes were higher than here in the United States but guess what? Those taxes paid for the Health Service that saved my Dad’s life when he had his heart attack, and detected my Mom’s breast cancer when it was so small she couldn’t even feel it.
Compare to this country where my 80-year old father-in-law had to work to pay for my late mother-in-laws doctor visits and medications. She had Medicare, but still paid almost $200 a month so she could stay with Kaiser Permanente. But Kaiser decided it wouldn’t pay for her specialist visits to UCLA, nor any medications the UCLA doctor prescribed (that’s called RATIONING people). So he worked at the grocery store, where he had union coverage that paid for the UCLA doctor visits and medications. Who in their right mind thinks its okay for an 80-year old man to HAVE to work to pay for doctor visits and prescriptions?
Facebook User:
Access to healthcare is a basic human right. We spend millions of dollars in foreign aid to give health care to people in poorer nations, yet we cannot help our own people. And as for “getting a better education and/or job” … have you seen how much school costs these days. There are some instances where people cannot help themselves, no matter how much they want to. On top of that – the other industrialized/Western nations that have universal health care spend less of their GDP on healthcare than the United States does and has full coverage. We spend twice as much as Canada and the United Kingdom, and still have about 50 million people uninsured. Can you not see the correlation – universal health care is better for the economy, productivity and our country overall.
And back to Kelson:
Have you ever been to a low-income neighborhood where there are no grocery stores, only convenience stores selling cheap, high-calorie garbage. Try Detroit – where there are no, I repeat NO, grocery stores in the inner city areas. Big Business (aka the Republicans) produce cheap crap that has no nutritional value and then price it so it’s Way Cheaper than health food like fruit and veg (if you can get the fruit and veg). And big business has even gotten into our schools – have you seen what school lunch consists of these days?
And now on a personal note … I have not had health insurance since my partners company decided to stop offering DP benefits (they cancelled my coverage two months before they actually told us. I pray every day that I don’t get sick. At the time I applied for VA health benefits (honorably discharged AF vet), but President Bush had instituted income caps on VA healthcare and, according to the chart, I make too much money. Even after President Obama rolled back the Bush-era income caps on VA health benefits, I still make too much to qualify.
In my opinion, the President and Democrats should have come out swinging and basically said “Medicare for everyone.” The Republicans, of course, fought back because their big-business donors are making too much money from the health insurance scam: pre-existing condition – denied coverage (and did you know that includes being pregnant); catastrophic illness – denied, and we will cancel your policy while we are at it. But we can give our CEO an $11 million salary; we can spend millions on dollars on lobbyists to protect our little empire.
And just how many fat asses do we see walking on the streets that need to learn about that wonderful diet plan that doesn’t cost a thing and requires no visits to the doctors office and no health insurance? It is called “PUT DOWN THE BLOODY FORK.”
How many now sit on their fat butts looking at tv or playing video games instead of working our in the garage or going for brisk walks?? Our good health is our problem, not the government’s. Health insurance should be for critical problems, not a leaking butt or a runny nose.
Marcus99:
The government has absolutely no obligation to be concerned about the healthcare of its citizens. There’s no provision in the Constitution that demands the federal or state government to care how Americans get health insurance or if they can afford it. If a vast swath of American people can’t afford decent healthcare, that should be a wake up call to themselves, not the government. Perhaps getting a better education and/or job will solve the lack of income problem. Instead of planting every problem we encounter on the government, why don’t we try to help ourselves for once?
Kelson;
Without your health, or a way to pay for your health, your job and/or net income ain’t worth a damn.
If govenment does anything in our lives, it should assure we all have access to reasonable healthcare. It is one of the most fundamental needs of a society.
The USA is the only western country that doesn’t really get that, it seems.
“How does anyone know what is truth and what isn’t. The House version is over 1,000 pages. One of the Senate bills is over 960 pages. With a few exceptions none of the congress members have read much, is any of the bills. And unless anyone else has read a copy of the bills in question who can say what is a lie and what isn’t?”
Believe it or not, it IS possible to read 1,000 pages. Members of Congress have read these bills, their staff have read them, and members of the press have read them. Your logic seems to be that it sounds daunting, so nobody has done it. That is simply a lie, and it should be an obvious one.
Then you quote some anonymous “attorney” who claims to have read it and expect us to believe your version of his version of what it says. Why do you trust him, but not any reputable source? Because he says what you want to hear.
How does anyone know what is truth and what isn’t. The House version is over 1,000 pages. One of the Senate bills is over 960 pages. With a few exceptions none of the congress members have read much, is any of the bills. And unless anyone else has read a copy of the bills in question who can say what is a lie and what isn’t? One attorney who claims to have read the House version says that only the last 500 pages deals with actual health issues. The first 500 pages proposes all kinds of “health programs” that are costly and do nothing to contribute to the reduction of medical costs. I think it is called PORK! The Republicans want to do nothing and the Democrats want a program to wipe butts at government (tax payers) expense.
Everyone should take a careful look at their paycheck. The net is after taxes. Are you happy with the net (what is left after taxes)? If not, then be careful what you ask government for because the net will decrease and the taxes will increase. Instead of driving to work you may have to walk because driving is too expensive. Government money comes from taxes and those taxes are paid by those who have a job. No job, no taxes, no government money. Not rocket science; and thinking, contrary to popular opinion, doesn’t make the hair on one’s head hurt.
the discussion in health care lacks intelligence. If intelligence was part of the debate, Republicans would be standing in front of us NAKED! They lack honor.
She does have the “pretty” qualities the repubs got with the bulldog, and she seems as big a tool…me thinks she’ll grace our polls in the future.
Why these networks let these people make flat out lies and get away with it is beyond me.
The opposing view argument thing is BS in these cases. A flat out lie is not an opinion but intentional deceit. And these asshats that complain about “Big Media” being liberal is also BS. Most of the networks are owned by republican people like Ruppert Murdock and that type of ilk.
Please: Stop The Insanity Now!
The problem for the Republicans is if they abandon the talking head illogic they’d have no argument at all.
Strip away the lies and the misinformation, the talking points about socialism and the insurance industry lobbying and there is absolutely no argument to be made against the proposed reforms.
The proposed reforms would, unambiguously, make Americans better off.
Because of the fact that that is true (and I suspect many Republicans know it in their hearts even if they will never say it aloud), the only way they can argue against the idea is through myths and scare tactics. Therefore, they *must* continue the current strategy of spreading lies and confusion *AT ALL COSTS* because there is no other strategy for them to what what they ideologically believe in.