www.facesofgovernmenthealthcare.com
Check this out and pass it on.
~ For the latest breaking news, be sure to join Michelle's e-mail list ~
Posted in: Health care
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Choosing Life and Beating the Odds
February 11, 2012 11:50 AM by Doug Powers
31 CommentsObama’s fraudulent abortion mandate “accommodation” Updated: Prez condemns “cynical” opposition
February 10, 2012 10:05 AM by Michelle Malkin
244 Comments‘To Stop the Multiplication of the Unfit’
February 10, 2012 09:06 AM by Michelle Malkin
151 CommentsFormer Democrat Rep. Regrets Vote for Obamacare Due to Contraceptive Coverage
February 7, 2012 03:40 PM by Doug Powers
75 Comments
How to Make a Liberal Politician Stand Up Against Intrusive Government
February 6, 2012 04:28 PM by Doug Powers
95 Comments
Your Friday IRS regulation dump: Obamacare’s job-killing medical device tax
February 3, 2012 04:21 PM by Michelle Malkin
58 Comments
The SIGA scandal: Calls for investigation mount
January 27, 2012 02:13 PM by Michelle Malkin
58 Comments
So long, farewell, DLTDHYOTWO: Ben Nelson retires
December 27, 2011 02:05 PM by Michelle Malkin
96 Comments
Categories: Health care
Riehl World View
» Whitney Houston: If I should stay I would only be in your wayPatterico
» Rick Santorum and the two playbooksRiehl World View
» Romney's Blood Is Blue, Not ConservativePundit & Pundette
» King Barack vs. the NonconformistsJustOneMinute
» Cat Blogging In A Harsh New Light
I passed it on and this is the responce I got.
your post scares me. The website you promote is an ad campaign by Conservatives for Patients Rights, a front organization– and a $20 million smear effort started in 2009—which is funded by disgraced Columbia/HCA Healthcare CEO Richard Scott . Scott’s purpose is to thwart and fight President Obama’s proposals for health reform. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Conservatives_for_Patients_Rights Richard Scott is the former CEO of Columbia/HCA Healthcare who was forced to resign amid fraud charges. Quote: “The company admitted to systematically overcharging the government by claiming marketing costs as reimbursable, by striking illegal deals with home care agencies, and by filing false data about how hospital space was being used. The company increased Medicare billings by exaggerating the seriousness of the illnesses they were treating.” http://www.forbes.com/2000/12/15/1215disaster.html Richard Scott was ousted from his post after an FBI investigation of Columbia/HCA that led to 14 felony convictions and $1.7 billion in criminal and civil fines for Medicare fraud. It was the largest fraud settlement in U.S. history. Richard Scott, the CEO, was forced to resign in shame. Is Richard Scott someone we can trust? Does Richard Scott care about any patient’s rights or any patient’s real health care? Health care was and is still a money making business for him. Scott is an investor who owns an urgent care company with over 20 facilities across the country.
When they refuse to debate you on the merits, pro and con, of universal healthcare, they pick one person, as an target to condemn everyone who doesn’t want the likes of liberals running your health.
No, she claims she isn’t. We already have a public/private system, and it’s already a disaster. She’s advocating more and more public, less and less private, ending up in more and more disaster, especially for the elderly and chronically ill. If you would like to test a liberal on children’s health care, you can do it easily – ask them why they advocate murdering them in the womb.
More aspects of public system than we have now, absolutely. The logistics need to be figured out by analysts. If a person with private insurance likes their plan, why in the hell should they have to take on the government plan? For starters, all children need to be covered.
How do you propose an uninsured chronically ill person gets proper healthcare right now? The only proposals I’ve seen from your side are keep searching for a job with benefits. It’s as if those jobs are readily easy to grab, particularly in this economy. Of course if your health deteriorates in the mean time, oh well. Your other “solution” is if you’re about to die, go to the ER, and they’ll try to save your life and then send you on the way. You bet we need some type of hybrid system that covers more people, particularly children.
Clap, clap, clap, I was so waiting for this, and of course Txvet is the lady to bring it up. Intellectualy laziness reigns. Take your abortion crusade to another thread. LMAO.
I’m not interested in your social diseases. And I notice you avoid the obvious answer, because it destroys the excuse for your crusade for nationalized health care.
If the chronically ill are not covered by Medicare or Medicaid or SCHIP, they won’t be covered by any other program, either. You seem unaware or won’t acknowledge that the trend in government paid health care is toward rationing, not the other way around. Your ultimate monument to affirmative action run amok is already proposing establishing an bureaucracy to approve all medical care, with an eye toward only providing what they deem “cost effective”. And of course, in addition, we will find ourselves with the European system you so admire, when many if not most people with serious conditions die before they get to the top of the inevitable waiting list. A single payer process is all about expanding the number of people paying into the system, not the number actually receiving care.
I note that you apparently overlooked the several arguments against a single payer plan that you might having trouble rebutting, including the fact that no children are presently without health care due to non-availability through Medicaid or SCHIP.
And I ain’t no lady. Apparently you aren’t either, although that was the impression I got from an earlier post. My mistake.
You’re right of course. Intellectual laziness reigns supreme on the left, and is evidenced in every debate. You are a prime example.
By the way, when you quote somebody, don’t change the quote without acknowledging that you’ve done so. It adds dishonesty to laziness.
Not yet they aren’t, but they will be by 2011.
You see we human beings, paticularly in America, have this amazing ability to learn from the mistakes of others, take what works and make it better. I’m obviously a little more optimistic than you are.
Speaking of laziness, you do realize that there is more than one country in Europe, right? Some European countries have better healthcare systems than others. You are following the lead of your conservative leadership by generally talking about how we don’t be like Europe, as thought Europe is a single, non-diverse entity. You’re ignorant.
You side makes this tired argument a lot when the reality is that not all children qualify for medicaid and SCHIP. Speaking of SCHIP, doesn’t the ultra-conservative platform want to even do away with it?
How do you propose an uninsured chronically ill person gets proper healthcare right now if they don’t qualify for govt. aid, and can’t financially afford a private carrier? Additionally, what if they have a pre-existing illness? Screw em, survival fo the fittest, huh?
I didn’t owe honesty to a person that continuously referred do me as “she”. It looked like childish cracking to me. You corrected that in a subsequent post.
Having spent nearly 11 years there, I’m well aware of that. Probably much more so than you are. But you’re correct. I could have noted that there are many different health care systems over there, some worse than others.
Socialism is socialism. There’s only one pure form and a lot of hybrids. They all have one thing in common. People like you think you’re a lot smarter than people like me, and better able to determine what’s best for me. I think you’re full of crap, and I have 68 years worth of experience to back it up. And there is little reason for optimism in the intended expansion of a program that is already thoroughly bankrupt by a government that has no way to pay its current bills than to inflate the currency.
Yet when Americans point to the manifest failures of European and Canadian systems, offering them as reasons NOT to copy them, the left simply closes its ears and says neener-neener-neener.
The reaction to the video is a case-in-point: it matters not a whit what the patients and physicians say, what counts is nefarious leader of the nefarious organization and his nefarious associations.
We’ve just been through this with Global
WarmingClimate change.Undresiege may be in favor of a different mix of the public/private system we have now, but most on the left do not: they plainly say, as does Borat Obama, they want nationalized, single-payer, universal care.
IOW they want what Europe and Canada have.
That’s not being optimistic, that’s being downright stupid.
I see that that those sentences are a tad redundant. Private insurance companies routinely keep chronically ill people on the outside with the excuse of “pre-existing illness”. Only if you’re fortunate enough to find an employer with a decent group plan, can you often avoid this wall. It’s really quite sad. A person can be severely chronically ill, and not have a job with the benefits of a group plan. Then they’ll be stonewalled from getting proper meds and treatment because private insurance companies don’t want to take your pre-existing illness on as a cost. Nah, unacceptable.
txvet2:
I stopped reading there.
I just finished with this and the ESCR thing in the other thread. I am going to enjoy my weekend. Take care, live long and prosper, have a nice weekend.
Smart move, Zero. Have a good weekend yourself. I do believe this thread is about dead anyway. Take care, bruh.
Oh, I don’t know, pay for it, maybe? How about this: Why should I have to pay for my healthcare and somebody else’s too? Or you might try this one: Exactly where in the Constitution do you find a right to health care at someone else’s expense? I know it sound harsh, but people have been dying of curable illnesses for just about forever, and they will continue to do so under your single payer plan. More often, in fact, given the fact that the quality of health care inevitably declines as the desirability of health care careers declines and the candidate pool becomes smaller. One recurring aspect of government run plans is that physicians tend to avoid or withdraw from the programs due to bureaucratic roadblocks, reduced reimbursement for services, and delayed payment. Insufficient health care providers (combined with bureaucratic restrictions on care) will inevitably lead to long waiting lists and denial of service as is common in Europe and Canada, and more and more people succumbing to their illnesses before they can get care. One other question: Where will the Canadians go for health care when they can’t come here – Cuba?
Don’t let that stop you. Most of your argument is redundant, best summed up as “it’s for the chilrun!!”. The ones that survive childbirth and the linen closet, anyway – although I know you won’t deal with the tacit use of abortion to reduce the demand for children’t health care. The chronically ill didn’t start out that way unless it’s a condition they were born with. At least some health plans only limit care for chronic or recurring conditions for a period of time after initiation of the policy. In any event, it is still possible to pay for services rendered, and many of the people without health insurance do exactly that. Another aspect of single payer is that the proponents want to ban fee for service. Maybe not you, but then you count as much as the rest of us on this board (unless of course you’re lying about being a cop and you’re actually a Congressional staffer).
But the one thing you never seem to get around to is why anyone else should pay for your health care, and why it’s any of the Federal government’s business. It certainly isn’t constitutional.
Oh, never mind. It’s a waste of time trying to use facts, logic, history and experience with someone whose entire argument is based on emotion.
Of course. You stopped thinking there, too.
undreseige:
Take good care!
txvet2:
Like I said, have a nice weekend. I’ll decline the invitation to trade insults, maybe I’ll pick it up on Monday.
Not an insult, a statement of fact. The mere mention of the word exposes all of the phony compassion and the fallacy of the chant “for the children”. The fact that you consider it an insult only reveals the depth of your insecurity over your own inability to justify supporting it.
txvet2:
As I have said many times: this issue is a bit more nuanced and to just outright assert that anyone who isn’t “mindless*-fertilized-egg-pro-life” isn’t thinking is an insult.
*mindless meaning a fertilized egg has no brain/mind, not that pro-life supporters are de-facto stupid.
You are welcome to believe I am insecure, I am anything but. The fact that I am trying my very best to be gracious and kind to you should be evidence of that.
Again, please have a nice weekend.
None of which in any way justifies or validates your position, which was my point. You’re the one who stated that you stopped reading as soon as the topic of abortion arose. However, the fact that I view those who sanction the dismemberment of babies in the womb or the siphoning out of their brains while in the act of birth as monsters beyond description, doesn’t mean that I don’t wish you a pleasant weekend as well.
txvet2:
What is my position?
Like I said, the issue is a bit more nuanced then “fertilized-egg-is-human” vs. “kill-babies-while-giving-birth.”
Of course you know this.
I stopped reading because it’s a red herring and detracts from the real issue (healthcare). I should have done it in the other thread.
I have no idea what your position is, other than that you are pro-abortion, per your comments. Nor did I ascribe any particular position to you. I made a generalized statement. However, if you feel that you fit that description, by all means wear it.
txvet2:
Yes. You don’t know what my position is. I am every bit “pro-abortion” as I am “pro-alcohol-abuse.”
Have a good weekend.
OK, well have a nice evening and watch out for those sobriety checkpoints.
The main problem with the American health care system is caused by Government:
1. Laws/regulations barring insurance companies from crossing state lines
2. Laws/regulations allowing only employee groups to receive discounted rates by insurance companies
3. Laws/regulations barring physicians from advertising their rates/fees so that patients and/or insurance companies to shop for best values
4. Insane frivolous malpractice lawsuit laws, allowing virtually any claim to be made and high settlements paid, driving up medical practitioners’ insurance rates and thereby, medical costs
5. Government-approved AMA and medical workers’ union regulations effectively mandating a caste system of compensation within the medical field
Take down these barriers, none of which would affect the quality of care, and we would then have a cost-effective, affordable health system well beyond anything the government claims in their wildest delusions!
Not to mention the hoops that pharmaceutical companies have to jump through to get a drug to market, or even to get approval to use an approved drug for other than the original purpose.
stone, exactly, to make the healthcare system more efficient stop the massive amount of regulation. It is probably like the worker’s unions, when they started they were needed, but then went way too far. Too many people making money off of the “problems” of the worker that eventually they had to make up “problems” to stay valid and continue making money.
One thing I know about the government is government workers spend the majority of their time justifying their jobs so they can keep getting a paycheck, many of these jobs are wasteful. Think of that movie Office Space, when the guy says we are interviewing for the jobs we already have. Justification of jobs mean that you create work, like in health care regulation, and most of this work is unneeded and only becomes a burden on the system. Calling for more regulation on a system that is too heavily regulated only comes from people who do not understand real life and lives their lives waiting on their next emotional moment.
To all the universal health care proponents:
* Name one thing that the public sector does more efficiently than the private sector? Exclude the military because there’s no way to compare.
*Explain where in the Constitution Congress has the authority to impose such a system on the people.
Sounds to me like the liberal minds meandering in this thread have no problem with the government funding healthcare for the masses (and all other programs recently discussed) with 60%+ of their paychecks.
There isn’t any. Forget “promote the general welfare” too. That’s why the states insisted on the 10th amendment. The clause could be used to allow the government to have any power it wanted to have. The states were very afraid of unlimited national power.
John Deaux:
First off, I will say that I am not in favor of “more” (whatever that means)government interference in healthcare.
I really think the whole system needs a serious relook and that tort reform is at the heart of many problems. This is not the only issue, however.
In any case, you really can’t say this:
Why can’t you compare? Why can’t I argue that private defense contractors are more effective in some ways than military? What about police? Fire department? Public Parks? The examples are endless. In order to discuss this topic seriously we must first be honest with ourselves and admit this isn’t an Ayn Rand vs. Marx issue.
If anyone is completely dedicated to pure “free” market libertarianism in all aspects then that person would be an anarchist.
As always, the issue is a bit more nuanced.
There are many options for reforming the current system. Tort reform would definitely bring down the costs. There have been several ideas floated around that would be beneficial to everyone, insured and otherwise.
You could make that argument. I don’t think we’ll have too many privateers with aircraft carriers full of figher aircraft bidding for contracts, though.
My reason for mentioning to exclude the military is because that’s the first card liberals play in this argument and it’s an unfair comparison.
I just can’t figure out why people seem to think that government is the answer for every problem, especially when it’s my liberty they’re willing to give up.
Government got their fingers in the insurance pie with Medicare/Medicaid and while the benefits are positive, the intangibles are what nobody looks at. Take smoking for example. Regardless of whether or not you smoke, the right to do something potentially harmful to yourself is your decision to make, nobody elses. First, government sues the tobacco companies to recoup Medicaid costs from smoking related illnesses. Then, they tax tobacco and ban smoking as much as traffic will bear “in our best interests.” If government is footing the bill for all health care, why keep something legal that may increase medical costs? Do the single payer proponents honestly think that once the government pays for everyone’s health care, they will allow risky activity? Like to ski? Too bad, the risk of you sustaining a costly injury means the gvernment will have to ban it. How about fast food. Nope, only healthy foods will be available. I realize this is an extreme, but it’s a very slippery slope and the extreme is just a few steps away.
What happens when studies show that people over 80 increase health care costs exponentially? Is euthenasia that extreme of an idea?
As I pointed out earlier in the thread before somebody hijacked it to quibble about abortion, they are already proposing to set up a bureaucracy to approve/disapprove all healthcare. The only possible purpose for that is so that they can ration it and provide it only to those they consider “cost-effective”, i.e. not old.
John:
Can we legalize the herb now? *smile*
In any case, I more or less agree with your post.
txvet2:
You?
No, you.
txvet2:
You brought it up, you are responsible. Man up.
Are you seriously going to throw out a red herring and then try to pretend that you didn’t?
A valid point of rebuttal to a claim that liberals only want universal health care “for the children”. You’re the one who started throwing around insults and wailing about “nuances”.
Pee off.
The fact that you disagree doesn’t make it a red herring. From my point of view, the “red herring” was you threadjacking into a diatribe about the “nuances” of abortion, and the “brainless” pro-lifers.
Now go to your corner, think up a few more insults, and hurry back. This is fun.
txvet2:
Where is my insult?
I said I stopped reading.
You said I stopped thinking.
I wished you a nice weekend.
You called me insecure.
I tried to explain the false dichotomy… and so on.
The problem with your idea that “liberals” who want universal healthcare and abortion is that not everyone who is pro-life is against government health-care, in addition, not everyone who is pro-choice favors government healthcare.
Do you understand what a “red herring” is?
Did you even read what I wrote? OMG I spelled it out specifically so there wasn’t any confusion.
I actually took care to point out I was not making an insult!
Where have I insulted you? I am purposely trying my best to be gracious (if for no other reason in deference to your status as a fellow veteran).
Anyhow, so if I were to bring up a subject more or less unrelated to the topic and you disagree with that subject then YOU are responsible for the thread-jack?
Huh?
Hmm…sounds like someone isn’t putting their money where their mouth is…
undresiege – We already HAVE what you want in government run health care right now; it’s called the VA!
When you can get back to us showing that the VA out-performs private sector health care, then maybe we’ll … start to consider it possible. Meanwhile take your silly free health care lies and go away; how about CUBA!