Should Barack Obama's prime time health care discussion belong solely to ABC News?

Barack Obama is a president who has no problem playing the media game.

From allowing two dozen NBC cameras access for a slavering, two-night profile, to a lighthearted cameo in Stephen Colbert's week of shows from Iraq, Obama has shown a willingness to appear on camera in ways more traditional presidents have not.

But news that President Obama will discuss his new initiative to create a government-run health care program during a daylong series of programs on ABC June 24 takes a universal concern and makes it into a highly-promoted ABC News event.

 Which raises a question: Is that really appropriate?

For President Obama, it's a nice deal. ABC News plans to air Good Morning America, World News Tonight and a special edition of Primetime from the White House itself, with the 10 p.m. Primetime show featuring the President answering questions from people “selected by ABC News who have divergent opinions in this historic debate,” along with questions submitted via its Web site, ABCNews.com, according to a press release.

ABC officials, with the elevated ratings of Brian Williams' White House special dancing in their heads, will turn almost every ABC News platform over to the event, with Diane Sawyer interviewing the president for GMA, Charlie Gibson anchoring the evening news from the White House, both Gibson and Sawyer teaming up for the town hall on Primetime, Nightline continuing the discussion at 11:35 p.m., ABC.com soliciting questions starting Wednesday, ABC News Radio airing segments from the event and their radio magazine Perspective offering coverage.

Given the light touch of Williams' specials, will ABC News offer the kind of tough questions this debate deserves? Shouldn't the White House have organized its own town hall for broadcast on all major networks in prime time, to give this issue the attention it deserves? Will networks which offer critical coverage of the heath care initiative have to worry about getting locked out of the next big Obama media event?

Those involved would likely shrug off such hand-wringing, but it is disturbing to see the nation's first stab at real health care reform in more than a dozen years start off with such a cynical partnership between a politician and a network news division.

Here's hoping the debate we get is truly worth it.

*

Comments

[Albert-System]

Thanks for this post!

[Tanya]

Just a few points in the good, er, "Doctor"s post to clarify.

1. The Fraser Institute is a RIGHT WING THINK TANK, akin to our Heritage foundation. You should know that before quoting statistics they've compiled as though they're politically neutral. They have been fighting Canada's single payer system since their inception.

2. Who doesn't realize Grandma is at the mercy of financial imperatives no matter where you look? You'd prefer a for-profit system make decisions for her? For that matter, who's even willing to insure Grandma for less than her entire social security check?

3. Yes, let's talk about the tax burden, shall we? What percentage of the average person's income goes to his/her employee-sponsored health program? Add to that the employer's share. And that's before you even step into a physician's office? After co-pays and deductibles and out-of-network: Oh my--who do you think pays more?

4. Did you really want to know the difference between a single payer, government-run system and the one we have know? I mean, it seemed like a rhetorical question for which you already seem to know the answer, but I'll give it anyway, just to be sure: PROFIT.

(I may be sick of my own voice, but I'm sicker of fighting my PPO everytime I leave a physician's office.)

[DoctorDoom]

Hillary,

Overall I think we end up on the same side of this issue. I don't want to give this control to the gov't. But if my tax dollars are going to pay for it, I want to have some say as to how it is spent.

On another point, (Sorry this is getting to a discussion about health care and not the intended topic) there was a study in 2006 (before the "catastrophies" that need immediate action - you know, TARP, Health care etc) that found only 3.9% of those surveyed (both insured and uninsured) were very dissatisfied with their own health care. Interestingly, there was only only 2.3% who were UNINSURED and very dissatisfied with their health care.

So, a vast majority of American (both insured and uninsured) are satisfied with their own care, but 44% feel the system is broken. Where do you think some of that perception is coming from? I woudl say some of it is coming from the chicken littles in Washington and their parrots in the media. The sky is falling. We must change everything now. We must do this and that.

Fear is the only thing that will cause Americans to give up their liberty. Politicians have been following this plan for decades - both sides.

[shahn]

If this was a debate, a conservative leader would be there, too. But it's not a debate. It's an ABC cheerleading show for Obama. It's going to be a government controlled media event. Pure and simple.

[Hillarycare sucked, too]

Dr. Doom:
It's not about being offended, it's about recognizing what, maybe, even you don't recognize - that we ought not give decisions like the one you've described (below) to government bureaucrats.

How do they, or you, know that Grandma wouldn't live another five years if given the appropriate medical treatment. And who are they, or you, to make that decision? That, precisely, is the slippery slope regarding government-run healthcare, all in all a very bad idea.

"If Grandma is going to die in 12 weeks, paying 1.3 million dollars to allow her to die in 15 weeks is a waste of a limited and valuable resource [health care dollars]."

[Tom Laskin]

Pres. Obama's handlers are beginning to remind me of Bill Clinton's handlers. They're getting very cute about giving exclusives and cutting what appear to be deals concerning what reporters can and cannot ask. Yes, we need health care reform, but it can't be dictated from on high. It's already very clear that the President is impatient with reporters who, in his view, try to take him off message. But his handlers need to learn that robust questioning of leaders' plans and motives by members of the press is part and parcel of democracy.

[DoctorDoom]

Hillary,

It is true that 25% of Medicare's budget is spent on people in the last year of their life. If you are offended I am sorry, but that is low hanging fruit for cost savings.

If Grandma is going to die in 12 weeks, paying 1.3 million dollars to allow her to die in 15 weeks is a waste of a limited and valuable resource [health care dollars]. The result is the same - dead Grandma. Only with the rationing, the people save $1.1 million dollars. Hospice is a wonderful service. Now, if grandma has $1.3 in savings to pay for it, all the more power to her. [The cynic in me says there are a large proportion of beneficiaries who would suddenly be opposed to the idea of doing "everything you can" for Grandma]

[O Canada!]

When did Canada become the "gold standard" for anything?

We're talking about a nation which calls their money a "looney" and puts a picture of a duck on one side and some other country's queen on the other.

I think it's safe to say such a nation may have an imperfect healthcare system.

But I don't want Canada's public healthcare system, I want us to take the lessons learned by others and do better when we create the American Public Healthcare System.

Now, everyone's telling stories about their grandmother - here's mine. After a major stroke her insurance company paid for 10 days of rehab and then kicked her out. Very compassionate.

After giving birth and having some complications my sister was sent home after 2 days - only to come back with an infection a few days later. Very risky.

This sounds like the "Canadian Committee" folks are talking about right?- but no, these decisions were made by good old fashioned private and for profit American insurance companies.

So maybe our system needs some fixin' too.

[Eric Deggans]

Using the 85-year-old grandma analogy...right now, insurance companies decide whether a test or treatment is too "experimental" -- read: expensive -- to justify use.

And right now, the president isn't tlaking about barring peopel from using health carep lans they like now.

I'm just wondering why so many people seem so bent on protecting the huge profits and dysnfunctional health care system create by our private companies?

Why shouldn't legislators try to create something that brings heath care protection to millions of people and provides a safety net for all the people who arel osing their jobs -- and health insurance-- thanks to the recession?

[Tailor]

Contrary to what Obama's supporters have been suckered into believing, you can't get something for nothing. Free always costs you something.

Or didn't you learn that in grade school?

[Hillarycare sucked, too]

re: "Your Grandma is not going to contribute enough to the society as a whole to justify spending that much money."

Your medical ethics are showing, and it's pretty scary.

You've given voice to precisely the evils of what will result if/when government health insurance and healthcare are the only options (and only the uneducated believe that private insurance will be able to survive competition with govt-funded insurance).

Sure glad that you won't be the one making those decisions.

[DoctorDoom]

Interesting discussions here.

Do you really want the government to declare that your 85-year-old grandmother is too old to get this or that life-saving or life-preserving operation because she's too old to make it worthwhile under the government's cost-benefit analysis? In Canada, there's such a board that makes those types of decisions. And that is a major way to keep down costs. Unfortunately America has become the country where dying is considered optional. Costs must be contained somewhere if any system is going to work. Someone has to say no to grandma spending 100 days in the intensive care unit if this going to be public funded. Your Grandma is not going to contribute enough to the society as a whole to justify spending that much money. Sorry to be so blunt but the amount we spend on people who are going to die in the next 12 months is staggering. Medicare spends 25% of its budget on people in the last year of their life and this has been consistent for 2 decades. That is the low hanging fruit of cost containment.

In America, the doctor is expected to be perfect, the care is expected to be limitless and it is expected to cost next to nothing for the individual. Those are mutually exclusive.

in Canada Malpractice is 8-10 times less than it is in the US. Why? 1. the loser pays the court costs of the winner; 2. Contingency fees not permitted in several provinces; 3. Canadian supreme court limits general damages and punitive damages are usually small; 4.Fewer lawyers in Canada 5. 90-95% of MDs belong to the CMPA which provides legal representation.

Canadian governments (10 provinces - 10 systems) reduce their expenses by limiting the avaialability of new and expensive meds, tests and treatments. Such a method of rationing is only possible in a single-payer monopoly. For example, the Canadian think tank, the Fraser Institute, found that, for patients requiring surgery, the total average waiting time from the initial visit to the family doctor through to surgery was 17.7 weeks, a significantly more than the 16 weeks found in 2001.1 Median waiting times remain higher in every category than are deemed ‘clinically reasonable’ median waiting times by physicians in 2005. (Fraser Institute, 2005, Chart 14.) Overall, 85 per cent of median waiting times are higher than clinically reasonable waiting times. (Fraser Institute, p. 27.)
In 2005 Canadians waited 12.3 weeks for an MRI scan, 5.5 weeks for a CT-scan and 3.4 weeks for an ultrasound. (Fraser Institute, Chart 16.) In 2002, Canada had fewer CT scanners per 1,000 population than the OECD average (10.8 compared with 19). Similarly, it had only 4.7 MRI scanners per 1,000 population compared with an OECD average of 7.9.
Canada ranked 24th out of 27 OECD countries in 2002 for the number of doctors per 1,000 population. It had 2.3 compared with an OECD average of 2.9.

A key factor behind these statistics is the inability of the Canadian system to provide even equipment deemed basic, let alone new technology. Dozens of diagnostic and therapeutic products developed decades ago, in widespread use in other countries, are relatively unavailable to Canadians. One example is the SynchroMed implantable drug infusion pump, a therapeutic device that, when combined with an antispasmodic drug, can be used in patients with severe spasticity resulting from injury (spinal cord trauma, brain injury) or disease (multiple sclerosis, cerebral palsy) to regain their mobility and independence, and to control their pain. Patients use SynchroMed, in Yugoslavia and Russia, saving their respective health care systems upwards of $100,000 per year in treatment costs. Canadian hospitals, however, refuse to provide patients with the $8,000 device (Gratzer, 2002, p. 83).
An assessment in 2000 by the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) argued that shortages have led to an “unconscionable” delay in the diagnosis and treatment of diseases such as cancer, heart disease, and debilitating bone and joint ailments (Gratzer, 2002, p. 88). “We’re not talking about Ferraris and Lamborghinis here,” according to Dr Hugh Scully, the head of the CMA. “We’re talking about the Chevrolets and the Fords that are necessary to make it [diagnosis] accessible and reasonable for everybody.2 To use Dr Phil Malpass’ phrase, medicare is “functionally obsolete”

In addition, The Canada Health Act explicitly forbids any Canadian from buying from the private sector a medical service that is already covered under the public health system. Private insurance plans are not allowed to cover “core services” and may only cover “non-core services.” As a result, the role of private medical insurance in Canada is limited to supplemental care.

The tax rate in Canada is 15% under $38.8K up to 29% (>$126K) PLUS a provincial tax of anywhere from 5 to 18.5%. So that means income taxes of 20 to 37.5% to pay for this great system.

Canada is not the answer.

What makes a Public Monopoly so good as opposed to a private one? [Those who want single payer.]

And with ABC News' STUNT, journalists lose a little more credibility. People are not as stupid as they think we are.

[Eric Deggans]

Pete --

You're making a lot of assumptions not based on a lot of evidence.

If a government-funded and/or administrered health program sets baseline costs for drugs, treatments and hospital fees, you might find your costs going down in your private plan.

If for some reason you lost your insurance now, good luck getting another insurance company to cover you due to your preexisting condition. But a government plan would have to take you on.

I wonder if two other things might not happen thanks to a government health care plan: Private companies could be even more selective about who they take on, which could reduce costs, because private insurance wouldn't have to subsidize as many people with costly illnesses.

And what if your illness takes a turn and requires treatment not covered by your health care plan? that's another huge problem for many Americans. If a government plan exists, you might have another options besides trying to fund treatment entirely out of your own pocket.

And finally, there is a growing pool of uninsured americans at 40-million and growing. Are we all just supposed to forget about them and hope we don't fall into that category someday?

[Pete]

I believe Hawaii had a similar plan to what Obama is proposing (for children under 18 I believe)... and they canned it.

Why? When given the choice for paying for health care and getting it for free, people chose to get it for "free."

Cost? Way more than budgeted. So they canceled the program.

I have a chronic illness that required expensive medication every two months. I can't afford not to have the meds. And I can't risk the govt deciding I'm not worth getting the meds.

My health insurance I can afford and it covers my meds. Offer "free" health coverage and after all of the masses sign up, my insurance will cost drastically more or will not be offered at all...

Why would a company offer health insurance if the govt offers it for "free?"

So, I'll be given the shaft either way.

Limit lawsuits, limit liability, the cost of health care will decline and the free market stays intact where innovation and efficiency are required.

Put it in the govt hands and you'll find bloated, inefficient and ineffective health care in our future.

And for people like me, that only means a much shorter, painful life span.

[Pete]

I believe Hawaii had a similar plan to what Obama is proposing (for children under 18 I believe)... and they canned it.

Why? When given the choice for paying for health care and getting it for free, people chose to get it for "free."

Cost? Way more than budgeted. So they canceled the program.

I have a chronic illness that required expensive medication every two months. I can't afford not to have the meds. And I can't risk the govt deciding I'm not worth getting the meds.

My health insurance I can afford and it covers my meds. Offer "free" health coverage and after all of the masses sign up, my insurance will cost drastically more or will not be offered at all...

Why would a company offer health insurance if the govt offers it for "free?"

So, I'll be given the shaft either way.

Limit lawsuits, limit liability, the cost of health care will decline and the free market stays intact where innovation and efficiency are required.

Put it in the govt hands and you'll find bloated, inefficient and ineffective health care in our future.

And for people like me, that only means a much shorter, painful life span.

[beltwaybandit]

Bear:

You are correct in your first statement. The fact that a bunch of talk radio talking points stating that "common sense" dictates opposition to Obama's plans do not make them true is exactly my point. No more, no less. Unfortunately several posters on this thread infer that anyone who doesn't oppose Obama on healthcare lacks common sense. Glad we agree on that point.

Opposition to my view on healthcare does not make one a fool. I never said it did. Rather, those who do not think for themselves and instead tune in to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity or Air America programs and easily adopt their positions without independent thought and homework serve as a celar definition of a fool. It doesn't matter what your position is...if you are miundless in how you arrive at your opinion, you are foolish. That's just good old common sense, right? (grin)

Who am I to say that people who disagree with Obama are fools? Well, in the first place I did not say that. See my previous comment. Secondly, I am just like you... and the "many, many" others who oppose Obama. I get to have an opinion, too. So what's your point? Are you saying I am not entitled but you are? I hope not.

Your last four graphs of your post resonate well with me. Those are all reasonable questions. Particularly on the bailouts of the auto industry, which appears to have been nothing more than political expediency to save union workers' jobs at great cost to taxpayers.

Look, I suspect we really aren't that far apart in much of our thinking. We can disagree on the specifics of solutions to healthcare, but I note that we are in agreement that chanes are required ot the current healthcare system.

Charitable giving was never more likely than during the boom periods of the last 8 years and the facts are not muchof such giving was dedicated to healthcare to benefit taxpayers. Now we are where we are, and that option is off the table.

I am one of the fortunates with a solid healthcare plan. The "small percentage" of Americans I keep reading about without healthcare now total 45-50 million people. I presume by your position that you have healthcare. Would you feel the same way if you were one of the 45-50 million?

Finally Bear, I agree with you on the sports franchises. In Tampa, it is an utter disgrace that taxpayers helped pay for a facility where a majority of the profits from facility revneue go into private hands. Those funds are far better used to help those in need of healthcare.

[Bear]

Beltway - The fact that what's being said on this thread is similar to what some people have said on radio - I assume you mean talk radio - has no bearing on whether the sentiments are "common sense," or whether they are true.

And just because people take a different approach on this issue than you do doesn't mean that they are fools and you are not. You don't have the corner on the truth, no matter how hard you try to play the role of, you know, "civilized," calm debater, etc.

The fact that people here and on radio are saying some of the same things -- that the Obama plan is untenable, and that you don't throw out a blue-chip healthcare system just because the ruling political party is in a rush to do so -- merely suggests the strength of the opposition to Obamacare.

Many, many people believe that Obama is heading in precisely the wrong direction on this issue. Are they all foolish for thinking that way? Who are you to say so?

True, a small percentage of people in this country don't have access to healthcare. But that doesn't mean the current system deserves to be broken.

Rather, let's look for a way to fill that gap, through private funding, through charitable giving, through pro bono work of doctors and dentists, etc.

If doctors and dentists and other medical professionals can go oversees to do charitable work (Doctors Without Borders, church mission trips), then why can't they do so here?

If cities and counties can fork over hundreds of millions for sports franchises, then for God's sake they can afford to spend $$ on the uninsured.

And wouldn't it have been far wiser to NOT spend millions or trillions to bail out poorly managed big auto companies that were going to go bankrupt anyway and instead allocate some of that $$ on the uninsured and/or preventative-health programs?

[beltwaybandit]

If I felt there was any "thinking" going on, comon sense or not, I'd feel a lot better.

But I listened to all of the "our system is great and Canada's is bad" comments posted here earlier on the radio.

And anyone who labels their own points of view as "common sense thinking" is intellecutally dishonest in its purest form.

One of the earliest points I was taught when I first worked in DC is it never pays to argue with fools, and you can tell a fool by the absence of fact or use of self-approval in their arguments.

Boy, is that lesson coming back to me on this thread.

I agree that the country should not rush into any solutions. That's why you won't read anything in here about me supporting Obama's plan.

But I also know that what is already in place does not work for some 45-50 million people but works just fine for lawmakers, successful business people and a good share of the working force. Oh, and it works really well for insurance companies.

I am one of the lucky ones. I'm well insured. I think it is time for this country to move ahead and lead in issues like this. It's not enough to be "better than Canada". Which we may not be.

[Lin Young]

I agree with you Eric, this is not appropriate and I don't understand why Obama would do this, or how this would even come about.

As a former government reporter, I have to say that this arrangement looks too cozy. Journalists who cover elected officials have to walk a fine line between developing a working relationship that yield access to sources when needed while making sure that the relationship doesn't become so collegial the reporter fails to ask tough questions.

I think this discussion should be carried by all media. It's one thing for the Obamas to control photos of Michelle and the kids in entertainment publications by doling out photo spreads and stories there, but this involves hard news on public policy and taxpayer money and it should be freely covered by all media. There should be hard-ball questions.

Covering public policy discussions should not be a plum that the U.S. president doles out to one media outlet in preference to others.

[Tommy]

Exactly, Eric - a knee-jerk response -- i.e., Obama's current proposed program -- to a problem that has been decades in the making is no solution at all.

We should not go into this new plan in haste, no matter the political "imperatives" at work.

I've yet to hear any actual, factual, rational explanation of how/why some people hear believe that the American healthcare system is not the best in the world.

Feel free to compare rates of recovery, diseases cured, innovative research if you'd like, or if you're willing to.

And don't dismiss the obvious, that the traffic between the U.S. and other countries for blue-chip healthcare is largely one-way, from there to here (the U.S.).

[Eric Deggans]

thanks tanya for trying to have civilized debate at a time when others refuse to.

I think this stuff is a metaphor for all our political struggles these days. It is easy to let the tenor of the times pull us into destructive ways of relating to each other, or arguments which twist the truth and depend on empty propganda for their impact.

But it is time to throw off those chains and step away from debate by slogan -- time for knees to stop jerking.

We face an array of serious problems as a nation, and we'll only find the solutions by thinking deeply and skeptically, no mater where a proposal comes rom.

[Jill]

"Just one more comment and then I'll shut up. I'm getting sick of the sound of my own voice."

So are we, particularly when that voice is merely promoting the talking points of the Democrats.

[Tanya]

Just one more comment and then I'll shut up. I'm getting sick of the sound of my own voice.

Harvey: Sorry to disillusion you. I lived in Canada for over 20 years so I actually know what I'm talking about. I've used the system both here and there and you're simply wrong. Here's a quickie: I gave birth at one of the largest hospitals in this county, and there was no hot water in my room.

Also: emergency rooms in Canada are not overcrowded with the uninsured. Because the uninsured in Canada are called tourists.

Finally, private health insurance is available in Canada, for those who wish to pay for it.

So, no, I'm not brainwashed. Just informed.

[We were warned]

Beltway - if you want to dismiss common sense thinking as "talking points," feel free to do so.

But that doesn't change the fact that completely upending a healthcare system that has been very good to us, just for the sake of political expediency and Obama's desire to do things quickly, makes any sense.

Go along with Obamacare at your own risk.

[Actually . . .it's not so good anywhere.]

Since my maternal grandmother died as a result of a medical error when her private hospital failed to staff adequately to meet the needs of their own documented procedures . . .

Since my paternal grandfather died after being denied first the operation, then the medication, that would have prolonged his life (and enhanced the quality thereof) because his doctors and his insurance company felt he no longer warranted treatment due to his "advanced age". . .

Since the worst modern medicine has to offer seems to happen regardless, I'd just as soon convert to a public healthcare system so my family can get the same crappy treatment at a much lower price.

[beltwaybandit]

Tanya: Thanks for your response. You may be right...solutions sometimes escape the capacity of many in this country to comprehend. However, that does not make Obama's plan any more "right" than it does those who oppose him. At some point, this nation's government is going to have to stand up and do something "right" and to hell with the politics. Otherwise all we will get is more "band-aid solutions" and we'll keep playing around with insurance.

Harvey/Bobby, etc.: If you are going to adopt the talking points provided you by political groups opposed to everything Obama, I recommend you at least take some time to try to put the thoughts into your own words.

Much like the liberals who were all hot and bothered about W in 2004, the anti-Obama crowd right now is busy regurgitating a bunch of prepared points and you come off looking and sounding somewhat uneducated...or at least incapable of independent thought.

In other words...easy to dismiss as lacking credibility.

Intelligent discourse requires independent thought.

[We were warned]

It's not just a "cynical partnership," it's a frightening collusion between the government and "independent" media that high-minded journalists and others interested in Freedom of Speech issues should be decrying.

The government essentially takes over a broadcast outlet to provide information?

Sounds too close for comfort to state-run media.

This is the slippery slope that the Left-minded media, the same one that practically anointed Obama, was warned about.

Is Obama the official president of ABC News? Is ABC News the official network of the U.S. presidency?

Given Eric's comments, are some on the Left finally waking up to the dangers of a media that seems to endorse/support every move made by the President?

Let's hope so.

[Harvey]

Tanya:

You sure are funny today - great and very silly comments about the wonders of the Canadian system.

The Canadian system "ensures everyone access to full care"? What you really mean is you've completely fallen sucker to the Obamacare rhetoric, and you know very little about the true-life horrors of the Canadian systems - including months-long waits for critical care.

Just because you say something doesn't mean it's true.

And just because Obama promises golden-age healthcare to all people in the U.S. with a plan that magically saves taxpayers money doesn't mean he isn't merely spouting gibberish -- giving the people, particularly the freeloading kind, what they want to hear.

And of COURSE the U.S. has the best healthcare system in the world.

Why else do people come here from all over the world for major surgeries and treatment? Maybe you've also forgotten that the major, important innovations in medical healthcare and research have taken place in the U.S.

Yes, some reforms are needed to health insurance. d'oh!

But a)anyone, anywhere, can get emergency medical treatment if they need it, and b)better for private companies and individuals to help the needy afford treatment than to turn it all over to the U.S. government to run.

Unless, of course, you believe that the feds have done a bang-up job with Medicare, Social Security, and FEMA.

And if you actually believe that, then we can't help you here.

[Tanya]

Bandit: I completely agree with you--and I think your point was elegantly made--but I don't think it's possible to educate the American public to the degree it would take to realize your ideal anytime this millenium. The current mess is too deeply entrenched and there's too much money in place to keep it that way.

(Case in point):

Bobby: Thanks for the comedic relief (what is it with the parallel sentence structure, today?) but this is where you're in over your head. Come on: This is the best system in the world? What you really mean is you've never lived anywhere else. Canada has a privately run system that is paid for by an insurance monies collected by the provincial governments. It's basically a non-profit insurance for a private health system, that runs at a fraction of the cost of ours, and ensures everyone access to full care.

Next time you want to know which system is better, ask a Canadian: they'll tell you.

[beltwaybandit]

Tanya,

I'm sorry...you lost me. Can you provide me your thinking on why the issue is health insurance and not cost of health care?

We may actually agree, but to be clear I am trying to focus on the root cause of health care concerns in this country. Thus far, it seems to me that a solid long-term solution would be to concentrate on the healthcare providers and just by-pass insurance altogether since insurance has caused most of the issues.

The proposition to healthcare providers would be a uniform and known price structure, and simplified billing procedures allowing them to reduce costs via less staff currently handling the insurance maze.

The patients would be required to pay the providers directly instead of an insurance company plus co-pays and deductibles. The patients pocket the insurance premiums they currently pay which allows them to cover their office visits, prescriptions, etc.

Major medical and prescription costs would become regulated, with "extraordinary" expenses such as for major surgery, extended care, cancer, etc. involving a taxpayer-supported fund to act as a partner to handle costs. Access to that fund would be based on a scale based on income...wealthier people pay higher percentage, poorer people less.

My bottom line is that rather than toy with extending health insurance to more people, just kill it off altogether, keep the money in the payers' pockets and develop a more efficient system that can be paid for by existing tax levels and amounts paid by patients into insurance premiums, co-pays and deductibles.

Pharma, doctors, hospitals, healthcare employees and patients all would have to adjust and meet half-way, but the savings from lack of healthcare insurance companies skimming off expenses and profits would offer a generous pool to handle the issues.

[Bobby]

Did you know that the U.S. has the best healthcare system in the world, and it's privately run?

Did you know that people from the world over flock to the U.S. to seek treatment because of our healthcare system, far superior to the others in the world?

Do you realize that the government-run healthcare systems - Canada, Cuba, you name it - are among the worst in the world? Do you realize that those types of systems routinely force people to wait months on end for surgeries and operations that are medically nursery?

Are you aware that those types of govt-run healthcare and health insurance systems translate into government bodies making decisions on whether people "deserve" this or that operation, based on politicians' notions of "quality of life"?

Do you really want the government to declare that your 85-year-old grandmother is too old to get this or that life-saving or life-preserving operation because she's too old to make it worthwhile under the government's cost-benefit analysis? In Canada, there's such a board that makes those types of decisions.

Do you really think that the same government that gave us medicare, social security and FEMA, not to mention the new Government Motors, is going to do a great job running healthcare (and health insurance)?

Are you so blinded by Obama that you will willingly go along that whatever he suggests, even though your better judgment tells you it's unwise to do down that road?

Wake up, do a little research, check out recent history. Don't just be led like lambs to the slaughter.

Don't let this wolf in sheep's clothing destroy all the things -- including first-rate healthcare and a free-market economy and a moral system built on Judeo-Christian beliefs -- that have helped to make this country so great, and the envy of all nations.

[Tanya]

Eric: You're right.

Gerald: How else do you combat an entrenched industry, with policies and goals that are diametrically opposed to those of their clients (i.e. us)?

Pete: You've proven my point. The issue is health INSURANCE, NOT health CARE. The HMO marketing campaign is doing a great job with you.

It Matters: That's just silly. If you have real arguments, you don't need childish rhyming schemes.

Bo: I am a private investor and I have nothing against corporations--I've earned a good income from several. It's just that private health insurance companies don't serve any purpose other than to drive up the cost of health care, kill the entrepreneurial spirit and gouge employers and physicians. If they're selling such a great service, why are they pulling out all the stops to fight an alternative? Surely if their product is superior, they'll win, right? Without shelling out a kabillion dollars.

Did you know that the single most common cause of bankruptcy in the US is illness?

Did you know that 20,000 Americans die from lack of health insurance every year?

Did you know that we pay far more for less care than the rest of the industrialized world? And yet our life expectancy is just above that of Albania's?

[Just Sayin']

Amen, Mr. Deggans. I'm tired of trying to participate in a rational political discourse, only to be met by baseless one-liners from various right-wing e-mail chains. Does everyone know that Mr. Obama is a muselim with a radical christian reverend, and that he isn't even an American? He's also responsible for my father-in-law's electric bill going up this month (we'll forget the fact that it's summer). Seriously, folks. Everyone is certainly entitled to their opinion, and it's important to discuss both Mr. Obama's successes and mistakes in the pursuit of better government. However, it might be more productive if some of these "anti-Obama" opinions made sense.

[thinking . . .thinking. . .thinking]

Simple minds will always seek simple solutions to complex problems. This is why he who has the best 10 word answer usually wins the debate.

It is also why talk radio hosts are so popular, and quoted so often. Not becasue they are wise, but because their words are emotional. monosylabic and thus easy to remember.

Until we recognize a sound-bite is not a conversation, and a symbol is not a complete thought, our discourse will be limited.

[Eric Deggans]

All due respect It Matters, but most of the claims in your post don't make any sense.

One of the other trends which alarms me most about our current public discourse is that it is hard to have a discussion about these critical issues without venturing into hyperbolic, overheated arguments.

Obama's not a muslim, he's not siding with terrorists, he's always had substantive ideas about policy and I think he's done a pretty good job of running the country at a time when we are facing a litany of major crises at the same time.

I think it is important to try and keep policy discussions on rational ground. Otherwise, people with honest differences of opinion with Obama won't want to voice concern for fear of fueling an unfairly hysterical reaction....

[Say it ain't so Bo]

Tanya, I wonder how it is that you are against private investors and corporations; yet you trust our big bloated, ever-expanding, self interest Government.

What gives?

[It Matters]

No it is not appropriate, but this is what we get with the boy president.

It was said by many that he was not preparred to be President; his supporters said no matter.

It was said that he was a media creation we know next to nothing about; his supporters said no matter.

It was said that he was the most Left in the Senate; his supporters said no matter.

It was said that he would bring Socialism to America; his supporters said no matter.

It was said that he will weaken us and side with the Arab/Muslims; his supporters said no matter.

[beltwaybandit]

This is a larger manifestation of an earlier blog Eric made pertaining to the consolidation of local news operations. Many posters decried the "lack of viewer choice" without regard to the funding of these various local news operations to cover the same stories. (My take was it was needless expense to have multiple helicopters and camera crews covering the same stories in the same way.)

In this case, there are five major TV network news operations (NBC/MSNBC, CBS, ABC, Fox News and CNN).

Each is prviately funded and part of their effort rests in the ability to gain perceived credibility by getting "exclusives". Brian Wiliams of NBC got two hours worth of prime time content in the White House recently. Now it appears to be ABC News' turn.

Why does it really matter that one prviately funded media operation gets an exclusive over other prviately funded news operations? Isn't the real issue whether the information is available at all?

The true issue here is cost of health care.

Obama and many others believe the issue is to deal with insurance companies...offer all people insurance at taxpayer expense.

In other words...transfer much of the cost of insurance to wealthier Americans (not necessarily wealthy...just those earni ng more than others) with an promise to reduce health care costs.

President Obama says it is shameful that Americans go without healthcare insurance "in a nation as wealthy as ours" (he just said this in a speech).
Yet just a few weeks ago Obama said the U.S. was "out of money"!!!!!!

Let's focus on healthcare and strip out the insurance companies altogether. The math never works...you can't put an insurance companybetween you and your access to healthcare and expect costs to be lower. You could pay the healthcare providers directly the same amount they get now, get rid of the insurance companies who generate billions in profits and put those profits back in the taxpayers' pockets.

[Pete]

I can't think of ONE government agency that is run efficiently and that is cost effective. Not ONE.

Now we want to add HEALTHCARE to that mix????? When govt inefficiency rears its ugly head it will be peoples LIVES at stake, not a drivers license or an IRS rebate or a new textbook.

How pathetic have we become as a nation when we think the govt needs to solve our problems. The smartest people in the country are not IN government, they're in the private sector.

Ugh... my children's lives are going to stink.

[Gerald]

Obama is the celebriPrez, anointed by the media, elected merely because of his celebrity appeal rather than any actual accomplishments.

So you're surprised that he's acting a celebrity, treating his misguided initiatives as products to be packaged, marketed and publicized?

We're not.

[Eric Deggans]

i would only say, Tanya, that it is dangerous to endorse methods you find unethical, simply because someone who supports your point of view is using them.

Isn't the reason we endured an unneeded war in Iraq and the abuses at Abu Ghraib and the global embarrassment that is Guantanamo Bay -- among other things -- because people supported Bush and his administration regardless of the tactics they used?

As conservatives watching a republican administration rack up massive deficits and spending, isn't one of the lessons from the Bush years the folly of letting someone who says they share your views use any tactic they choose to succeed?

Obama said during the campaign he would hold himself to a higher standard. Time for those of us who agree with many of his stands to help him do that.

[Tanya]

No, it's not appropriate.

It is, however, spectacular strategy, one that is almost mandatory in an environment where the "health" insurance lobby, the AMA, the drug companies and the medical equipment manufacturers are committing hundreds of millions to obfuscating the real issues.

The very language used to discuss the issue serves to cloud it; almost by design. Obama's discussion revolves around public health _insurance_, not public health.

Yes, it's unfortunate that our elected officials have to pander to sympathetic media outlets to get our attention--count the number of exclusives Cheney gave to Fox "News" over his tenure--but it's simply the way it works.

I was against it when my version of Dr. Evil was in the White house, others will be against it now that their particular bête noir is there today.

But when the president (and we) are up against a massively influential set of self interests, i.e., the ones he's facing today, there's no other choice. We're lucky to have such an articulate spokesman on our side in this fight; especially when so many of us will be naively fighting against our own self-interests.