2 Key Points For Debating Health Care & Crushing BS Talking Points

[ihavenobias]

over the prospect (which sadly doesn't exist) of a single payer health care system in the US. We even have prominent Republican senators , although thankfully is trying to keep them honest. At any rate, I wanted to share 2 critical points everyone should know well for discussing these topics with friends, family and coworkers.

NOTE: I know this might be obvious to many/most of us, but it's not always concisely stated or framed in a way that's easy to share with others who aren't as informed as we are.

1. The US health care system is not the best in the world. But don't take my word for it, instead look at the evidence provided by the , "which represents CEOs of major companies". You read that right. When the right winger/libertarian in your life gets ready to dismiss the following information as somehow being biased by socialist interest groups (or some other such nonsense), make sure you point out who the Business Roundtable represents.

From :

"...Americans spend $2.4 trillion a year on health care. The Business Roundtable report says Americans in 2006 spent $1,928 per capita on health care, at least two-and-a-half times more per person than any other advanced country.

In a different twist, the report took those costs and factored benefits into the equation.

It compares statistics on life expectancy, death rates and even cholesterol readings and blood pressures. The health measures are factored together with costs into a 100-point "value" scale. That hasn't been done before, the authors said.

The results are not encouraging.

The United States is 23 points behind five leading economic competitors: Canada, Japan, Germany, the United Kingdom and France. The five nations cover all their citizens, and though their systems differ, in each country the government plays a much larger role than in the U.S.

The cost-benefit disparity is even wider — 46 points — when the U.S. is compared with emerging competitors: China, Brazil and India...".

2. No one is actually pushing for "socialized medicine". How would giving people a choice to opt in to a public plan possibly be described as "government taking over health care"?

That point is so obvious that I shouldn't have to make it. Apparently a less obvious point is that the Single Payer system many progressives (myself included) favor is also not "socialized medicine". Very few countries have actual "socialized medicine" which would be accurately described as the government not only providing the insurance, but also running the hospitals, i.e. hiring and firing the doctors and nurses, purchasing the equipment, etc.

If someone insists on trying to fear monger with the word socialism, they could at least try to be a little accurate. The Single Payer system most progressives want could possibly be described as "Socialized Insurance". And even in that case it would likely just mean a public plan that would provide basic coverage for all Americans. If you wanted something special like a private room, experimental treatments or cosmetic surgery, the private insurance companies would still be around to provide coverage for those extra services.

PS---Sadly we're nowhere close to a single payer system, and there's a chance we're not even close to a good, non-watered down public option. But if someone insists on BS talking points about long wait times and low doctor pay, you can also share the information in this great piece:

[redqueen]

1. Thanks for this!

K&R

[napoleon_in_rags]

2. Rec'd! Somebody send this to the Greatest page. nt

[jgraz]

3. K&R - Great post and great link at the end!

Thanks!

[FiveGoodMen]

4. Well done

Everyone needs to see this.

[DaLittle Kitty]

52. Here is the LINK to the Debate Between John Russell,ARNP + David McKalipMD On Health Care Reform

. Updated at 12:52 PM

John Russell is an Acute Care Nurse Practitioner and 2006-2008 Democratic Nominee in Florida's 5th Congressional District. John has been a firm advocate for a National Single Payor Health Care Plan for the past six years.

David McKalip, M.D. is a Neuro-Surgeon from St. Petersburg a strident opponent of proposed Health Reform that includes single payor or the public health option. Dr. McKalip is a BIG worshiper of Ayn Rand :puke:

This is good. John really takes the Brain Surgeon to task and stands strong for the public option, Single Payer Plan ya know!!!

http://sound.wmnf.org/sound/wmnf_090618_130500_radioact...

[Cleita]

5. K&R

[sandnsea]

6. Why single payer was kept out of the talks

So that this wouldn't happen, but nooooo,

And where was everybody a month ago when people were being begged to get behind a strong public option before it was too late.

:argh:

And now you want to say thank god for Howard Dean????

Fucking lunatics.

[timeforpeace]

7. Thanks for the info.

[yellerpup]

8. Well done.

When I had no insurance (1986) and had a gran mal seizure, I was taken to the hospital, kept overnight and told I needed an MRI. When I told them that I had no health insurance they came back in 20 minutes, said they would release me, and told me, "You'll probably be okay." I was and still am okay. This year I had one wonky pap test and went back for four 'procedures' before I was referred to an oncologist. Final analysis: the first pap test was machine read and wrong. All the rest was referral wonderland for the doctors. I knew then and I know now (the subsequent tests all came back fine) that I don't have cancer. They just kept sending me around and around until the insurance company said no more and it was a collosal waste of resources, time and money. Let's treat what is wrong with us. Let people who are sick be able to go to a doctor and get treated. I don't care if you call it the great hairy-eyeball communist conspiracy, we need to take care of our own. This is a very good piece, ihavenobias. Thanks for posting. K&R!

[ihavenobias]

12. Wow

Scary stuff but I'm glad to hear you're ok. And I agree, labels shouldn't matter but unfortunately they're used by the right to fear monger.

[theFrankFactor]

9. Tom, Put thisstuff in your blog too!

Excellent material man.

MY LATEST SHOW:
http://jd-iyfr.podomatic.com/enclosure/2009-06-15T07_20_25-07_00.mp3

[ihavenobias]

16. Thanks for the link Frank. n/t

[Turborama]

10. Thanks for the insightful commentary, man K&R

[navarth]

11. K & R nice going Tom

[CherylK]

13. K & R!!!

:applause:

[fascisthunter]

14. K&R... another great post Tom

been away for a while... hanging out in socialist Europe.. lol

[ihavenobias]

17. Uh oh, better not bring that back here to the states!

;)

[Kajsa]

15. Thank you, IHNB!

We are very behind other first world nations
when it comes to health care.

Now it's our turn to have health care for all!

:kick: and R

[OhioChick]

18. Kick n/t

[WillyT]

19. Big K & R !!!

:yourock:

:kick:

[Seldona]

20. K&R

I just don't get the people arguing against single payer. The end result of this whole 'debate' is people dying early, and for preventable reasons. What the hell kind of debate is that?

[libodem]

21. excellent points

K&R

[hfojvt]

22. those two numbers do not add up

"...Americans spend $2.4 trillion a year on health care. The Business Roundtable report says Americans in 2006 spent $1,928 per capita on health care, at least two-and-a-half times more per person than any other advanced country."

Which is it - 2.4 trillion or $1,928 per capita? Because $2.4 trillion is about $8,000 per capita, and $1,928 per capita is only 578.4 billion. I am wondering is somebody didn't mistake a 7 for a 1 and it is supposed to be $7,928 per capita.

[aikanae]

23. More proof

I've referred people to the Frontline PBS video: Sick Around the World
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/
It compares 4 different countries healthcare including 2 that use mandatory private insurance.

[YewNork]

24. Still, the opponents' policy is to keep telling people that they won't have a choice. Because ..

if they hear it enough times, they'll start to believe it.

[pleah]

25. K&R

[quidam56]

26. Profit Care is more important than Patient Care

We MUST have health care reform this year. As a former health care giver, I am sad to see Profit Care is now more important than Patient Care. http://www.wisecountyissues.com/?p=62 In East Tennessee and southwest Virginia what the heath care system is selling is nothing at all like what really is their "acceptable standards " on public record in Greeneville, TN Federal Court, cases no. 2:04-cv-375. Apparently it's legal to lie about health care and legal to run false and misleading advertising about health care in TN & VA.

[emanymton]

27. Is "Socialized Medicine" So Bad? ....

.

It works quite well for every member of USA Congress and USA military. "Socialized Medicine" is someone else paying for your medical benefits.

I want "Cheney Care!" Do not tell me about medical insurance. Give every one in USA universal health care now.

~@:o?
.

[Festivito]

28. Point 1 MISINFORMATION? 2.4T$/300M=8K$, NOT 2K$

Single payer health care, i.e. everyone and everything covered, choose own doctor, ... should cost $3,000 per American/per capita as would follow from other countries using it. (ASIDE: We won't let ourselves calculate the cost here as it would make the health care debate so obvious that the insurance industry would cry.)

The last per capita figure I saw for what we do pay was $8,160. That's per American, every man, woman and child. It had been $6,000 per year per person for several years.

So, what's this $1,928? A look-good misprint??????? Trying to hide the 3000 figure to be so much more than what we pay WHEN IT ISN'T?????

[Usrename]

30. The Republicans are flogging the $1 trillion talking point.

It is estimated that the government cost for the first ten years of a public option would be a trillion dollars.

That's about a thousand a year per household, or $80 dollars a month. This figure does not include the buy-in cost, but it seems like most households would LOVE to have access to affordable health care for $80 a month.

[Festivito]

46. So, we're just supposed to take it? And, what's with the $2K figure?

We should not take it, and we certainly should not just allow random figures being bandied -- especially when they look like misinformation that hurts our country.

Also, that $80/month/household seems to mean little to nothing when set next to 1T$.

$80*12 months = $960 /year or call it 1K$.

Even at 1K$/year, 300-million Americans comes to less than a third of a trillion, NOT CLOSE TO ONE TRILLION. The household number would make it LESS than even the third of a trillion.

What is going on here?

[clear eye]

57. That's not a Republican figure--it's what the Congressional Budget Office

has determined would be the cost of the program as outlined by Pres. Obama. The CBO is an independent gov't group created to determine the costs of proposals put before them by Congress, to allow Congress to know how much they'd need to budget for a program they are considering. Their entire credibility and usefulness depends on their accuracy. Sorry, but that's what the Administration proposal would cost.

[hfojvt]

43. congrats for being the second person to notice that

all these k's and r's from people who don't notice a huge number discrepancy.

I suspect that somebody confused a 7 with a 1 in their own handwritten notes.

[Festivito]

47. You did call it first. I forgot to update before posting.

I download a bunch of stuff so I can read it while away from connections. Didn't see your post.

I suspect something a little more sinister with their number reporting.

[hfojvt]

48. it's not a big deal that I was missed

although I did want to draw attention to myself, sitting there with no replies. I didn't read the whole thread and maybe some others mentioned it outside their subject line. OPs probably get far more views than posts after number 23. That's mostly what I read, besides replies to my own posts.

[RufusTFirefly]

29. Will the public option actually be almost worse than nothing?

That's what worries me. It'll be like the bank bailouts that have speciously been called "socialism." (Since when did socialism involve giving large corporations lots of public money with almost no oversight or influence?)

What concerns me about the public option is its potential to fail and set back the cause of single-payer for the rest of my lifetime.

The public option is not a compromise. It's worse than a comprimise. It is a half-assed solution. What's likely to happen is that the private insurers will take all the healthy rich people and the public option will be left taking care of the sick and the poor. That's wonderful on one level: sick people and poor people should have a right to health care. But I foresee an almost immediate trend toward starving the public health care of funding. Just as our public schools and public transportation have been starved. At that point, even some folks who started with the public option may bail because the public system will grow increasingly overburdened and increasingly less effective. Then Republicans will be able to say, "See! We told you so! Socialized medicine doesn't work!"

It reminds me of what the exasperated former head of Amtrak once said to Congress: First you starve us. Then you yell at us for being too thin.

[Soylent Brice]

31. BRAVO!

absolutely great.

[pnwmom]

32. And the answer to the CBO study that says it would be too expensive is:

that's not the Democratic plan -- that's the plan the Republicans are insisting on WITHOUT a public option, which will lower costs.

[SanchoPanza]

33. Point 3: We Already Have Rationing

Rationing already exists in the private health insurance paradigm, so insistence that a public option or a single-payer approach to insurance will result in the rationing of care is largely irrelevant. The economic incentive for health insurers is to enroll people who have a minimal history of health-related issues (i.e. no preexisting conditions), deny insurance claims when they are made as often as possible, create levels of bureaucracy in the claims system that patients find difficult to navigate, and to drop coverage altogether for people who suffer catastrophic illnesses and conditions through the process of rescission.

The result is that nearly fifty million Americans have no health insurance, millions more are "underinsured" and can't attain quality levels of coverage that are necessary to promote long-term health, and thousands die every year due to denied claims and having their insurance canceled.

If this isn't rationing, I'd honestly like to know what is.

[Hoyt]

34. I don't think the facts matter to those opposed to SPayer.

Those opposed, either make money from the current system, or are scared that they will have their doctor(s) appointed for them. To many of the right wingers, that means they are afraid they might have to see a minority physician or they might have to share a hospital room with someone who does not love Sarah Palin and/or george bush.

Most opposed are currently in good health, and haven't seen the nightmares once you become really sick.

Further, they think some folks will get coverage without "earning" it. They are the "I'm happy with what I've got right now, the heck with everyone else" opposition group. They do not realize they are one major illness, one employer who cancels coverage, one layoff, one mental illness not covered by their employer's plan, etc., away from bankruptcy.

They also fear "government rationing" of health care. They do not realize it is rationed under the current system. If you do not have coverage, you can't get preventive care. But the opposition believes it's OK because you can get a little care from an emergency room when you are bleeding internally, gasping for breath, or in terrible pain. Until then, good luck getting any care. Worse, employer plans exclude a lot of things or the coverage has an insufficient maximum for serious illnesses.

I've about given up arguing with these folks.

[ihavenobias]

35. This is more about reaching out to the uninformed moderates in your life.

At least making sure they aren't influenced by BS right wing talking points and giving them a little ammo. Of course we'll never influence the 20% (give or take) of die-hards.

[Hoyt]

36. You are right.

Unfortunately, where I live -- Georgia -- it's a lot more than 20%.

But your basic point makes sense -- concentrate on those who might be moderates (if I can find some).

[unapatriciated]

37. I have been reaching out but some don't want to hear....

They think all you have to do when you are denied coverages is sue.
They know little about the laws and how difficult and time consuming it is.
You are right we will never reach that 20% and that is sad because they are just one illness away of truly understanding single-payer

I'm patty in the comment section
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QkgUkM0o6Q

edited to add:
I have posted the site in the op many times, think it should be posted many times more....thanks.

[DaLittle Kitty]

55. THEY Are All Just Full Of BULLSHIT!

They got theirs now you get yours but don't you fuck mine up in the process! That's the line!

[LeftHander]

38. "Millions would choose free public healthcare..."

Another RW argument that public insurance would take away jobs and close hospitals.

They never say that millions of Americans are without insurance currently and would be the ones signing up in droves.

[AllTooEasy]

39. I agree but,

You made the point about the Gov't will not control the hospitals. Well, private insurance companies do control the hospitals...and the Repukes know it. They are afraid of losing that control to the gov't, which will exercise control of pricing and which procedures are deemed "necessary". I want a public health care plan, but I would use a different argument.

Also, we need to do a better job of combating the label "socialized". "Socialized" simple definition means "Gov't financed and controlled". If you hate socialized enterprises then you hate The US military, our sewer system, our Nukes, our streets, NASA, our police forces, our firemen, the FBI, and a whole bunch of other socialized enterprises our ring wingers can't live without. Don't get me wrong, I don't want my car, house, clothes, food, my business, or personal possessions to be socialized, but we need to do a better job of controlling the definition of socialized.

[Uncle Joe]

40. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, ihavenobias.:thumbsup:

[sasquuatch55]

41. The Right wingers are trying to confuse the Single payer issue....

.... by asking and polling, are you happy with your health care? Health CARE is not the problem or the issue, it's the Ins. companies.
More spin to keep us dazed and confused.

[gorfle]

42. Socialized insurnace is socialized medicine.

Look, I'm pro-single-payer. But let's not run away from the obvious truth here.

When people talk about fear of "socialized medicine", they are not necessarily talking about actual government-run or government-issued health care. They are talking about how it gets paid for. And if the government runs the largest insurance company in the nation, it will be directly controlling the purse strings for the American medical system.

If you socialize the insurance, you've socialized the medicine for all but the wealthiest people who can afford to go outside the system.

So single-payer is socialized medicine. We should not be afraid of owning up to this. The argument is not about socialism.

It's this:

If you are going to put the control of which of your health care services are going to get paid for, would you rather put this choice in the hands of politicians or corporations? I'd rather put it into the hands of someone I can at least vote for or against than someone who is out to make a buck at my expense.

[ihavenobias]

45. I agree and disagree.

Most single player countries do not involve the government hiring and firing doctors and nurses, etc. THAT is that type of fear mongering (the issue of if it should be feared is another issue) the right does.

But yes, as I and others have written before, we need to explain that socialism is not a dirty word. With that said, I wanted to keep my post concise, and the first step is to explain what is and is not socialism IMO.

[gregflewelling]

50. Socialized insurnace is socialized medicine.

Why are you limiting the choices to government or corporations? Why not let everyone pay for their own health insurance like we do with auto insurance?

[gorfle]

51. Uh...

Why are you limiting the choices to government or corporations? Why not let everyone pay for their own health insurance like we do with auto insurance?

Uh, who do people pay for their health insurance or their auto insurance....INSURANCE CORPORATIONS.

Those are your choices. Pay a corporation for your insurance or pay the government for your insurance. At least the government is not, in theory, out to make a buck at it.

[alfredo]

44. Toon

[gregflewelling]

49. 2 Key Points For Debating Health Care & Crushing BS Talking Points

Point #1: Cost/benefit means little when you have stage 4 cancer and you need an expensive, new drug. (Ask Ted Kennedy about his brain cancer procedure at Duke University.) Perhaps the cost/benefit is poor because we don't eat right and exercise enough. Or perhaps the higher costs are due to saving/extending life longer than other countries can. You need to show causation and how health care reform will address it.

Point number 2: The current legislation (Thurs. 6/18) being marked up calls for a medical advisory board in the federal government to decide what the health insurance companies can cover in any plan they offer, how its covered, and therefore what hospitals, doctors, etc. can provide patients. Yes, this includes your current health plan. You can keep it, but it won't necessarily cover what it covers now.

[ihavenobias]

54. Fox News Talking Points

I provided links to reputable sources to back up my claims. If you want to be taken seriously, I suggest you do the same. And no, Fox News and Limbaugh (etc.) are not credible sources.

[20score]

53. Damn - I'm too late to rec and this needs more.

[clear eye]

56. What about the very real danger of recommending the "public option" to uninformed people

and having the crappy version that passes fail due to runaway costs as it becomes the dumping ground for anyone w/ an expensive illness (but not covering all their necessary treatments), while private insurers skim premiums from the relatively healthy. Then you've lost all credibility when you try to suggest single payer as a solution. People will understandably figure that the U.S. gov't, unlike those foreign gov'ts, can't manage a gov't health program, and you've dug single payer into a political hole.

That's what people mean when they talk about fashioning a public option that will never lead to single payer. When you create something that will need obscenely large amounts of tax subsidies (due to lack of incoming revenue and continued huge administrative costs in the larger system that drives up the cost of services) and offer 2nd class coverage, you create an appearance of gov't incompetence and poison the well for single payer forever.

Personally, I'll be damned if I promote something I know will further destroy the dollar and cause more economic hardship, and inevitably have to be cut back until it eliminates all expensive treatments, necessary or not, and only covers the new poor that hyperinflation has excluded from the Medicaid rolls and some of those dropped by private insurers, while uninsured rates start climbing again. I'll be damned if I promote something designed to cut back Medicare coverage (as the President promised), and have so many exclusions that it functions as a charity program with 3rd class coverage, leaving older people worse off than they are now and so unappealing that no one who can possibly get coverage elsewhere would take. And that's what the Administration's "public option" is shaping up as. Something we would literally be better off without.

[ihavenobias]

59. That's a valid concern.

Of course couldn't a similar argument be made against passing a crappy version of single payer? Just something to consider.

[tooeyeten]

58. Health insurance?

Oxymoron.